Examkin

Sufficient Assumption

31 questions

All types31Multiple choice17True / False8Matching6
Question 21Question →

Match each flawed or incomplete argument regarding the restoration of the Fresco of Verano to the sufficient assumption that, if true, logically guarantees its conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

The Fresco of Verano will be restored using the newly developed laser-ablation technique. Therefore, the fresco's delicate original pigmentation will not be damaged during the restoration process.
If the restoration team applies chemical solvents to the Fresco of Verano, they will damage its original pigmentation. Since the team has decided not to apply chemical solvents, the original pigmentation will remain completely intact.
To successfully preserve the original pigmentation of the Fresco of Verano, the restoration team must completely avoid abrasive scrubbing. Because the team's protocol strictly avoids abrasive scrubbing, the original pigmentation will be successfully preserved.
The Fresco of Verano will be successfully restored only if the mural is permanently relocated to a climate-controlled museum facility. Therefore, it is inevitable that the Fresco of Verano will not be successfully restored.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Argument 1 requires the assumption that laser-ablation leaves pigmentation undamaged. Argument 2 requires the assumption that pigmentation is damaged only if chemical solvents are applied. Argument 3 requires the assumption that avoiding abrasive scrubbing is sufficient to preserve the pigmentation. Argument 4 requires the assumption that the mural will not be relocated to a climate-controlled facility.
Each correct assumption provides the exact logical bridge needed to make its corresponding argument formally valid. For the first argument, it connects the premise directly to the conclusion. For the second and third, it converts flawed conditional deductions (negation and reversal) into valid ones by providing the missing direction of the conditional relationship. For the fourth, it provides the missing factual premise to trigger modus tollens.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the first argument.
Premise: Laser-ablation is used. Conclusion: Pigmentation is not damaged. The missing link is 'If laser-ablation is used, pigmentation is not damaged.'
To guarantee the conclusion, we need a conditional statement linking the new premise directly to the new conclusion.
2
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the second argument.
Premise: Solvents -> Damage. Premise: No Solvents. Conclusion: No Damage. This is an illegal negation. We need the assumption 'Damage -> Solvents' so that 'No Solvents -> No Damage' follows.
Translating 'only if' to a necessary condition fixes the illegal negation by allowing a valid contrapositive deduction.
3
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the third argument.
Premise: Preserve -> Avoid Scrubbing. Premise: Avoid Scrubbing. Conclusion: Preserve. This is an illegal reversal. We need the assumption 'Avoid Scrubbing -> Preserve'.
Making the necessary condition sufficient guarantees the conclusion.
4
Analyze the logical structure and identify the gap in the fourth argument.
Premise: Restored -> Relocated. Conclusion: Not Restored. We need the premise 'Not Relocated' to complete the modus tollens deduction.
Denying the necessary condition is required to validly deny the sufficient condition.

Key Concept

Sufficient assumptions must provide 100% logical certainty to the conclusion when added to the premises. This often involves completing conditional chains or fixing flawed conditional reasoning (like illegal reversals or negations).
Question 22Question →

Read the following argument:

Any synthetic chemical compound that bonds effectively with the Z-receptor will inhibit the replication of the delta-virus. The newly synthesized compound, Brivanex, was designed specifically to target the Z-receptor. Therefore, Brivanex will successfully cure patients infected with the delta-virus.

Is the following statement true or false?

The assumption 'Any compound that inhibits the replication of the delta-virus will successfully cure patients infected with it' is sufficient to logically guarantee the argument's conclusion.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The correct evaluation is False. A sufficient assumption must leave no logical gaps. While the proposed statement bridges the gap between inhibiting the virus and curing patients, it completely ignores the gap between Brivanex being 'designed to target' the receptor and actually 'bonding effectively' with it. Without bridging both gaps, the conclusion remains unproven.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the premises and the conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: Bonds effectively with Z-receptor → Inhibits replication. Premise 2: Brivanex was designed to target the Z-receptor. Conclusion: Brivanex → Cures patients.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to map out the existing logical chain and locate missing links.
2
Analyze the proposed assumption to determine its conditional structure.
The proposed assumption translates to: Inhibits replication → Cures patients.
We must understand exactly what logical bridge the assumption provides.
3
Apply the assumption to the premises to test for deductive validity.
Combining Premise 1 and the assumption yields: Bonds effectively → Inhibits replication → Cures patients. However, Premise 2 only states Brivanex was 'designed to target' the receptor.
A sufficient assumption must leave zero ambiguity and force the conclusion to be 100% true based on the premises.
4
Determine if the conclusion is fully guaranteed.
Because 'designed to target' does not deductively guarantee 'bonds effectively,' the chain is broken. The conclusion that Brivanex cures patients is not guaranteed.
If any logical gap remains, the assumption is not sufficient.

Key Concept

Identifying all deductive gaps in an argument to evaluate whether a proposed assumption is truly sufficient.
Question 23Question →

Consider the following argument:

A terrestrial organism can survive prolonged exposure to atmospheric argon only if its cellular membranes contain cryptobiotic proteins. The newly discovered deep-cave lichen *Verrucaria argonensis* contains cryptobiotic proteins in its cellular membranes. Thus, *Verrucaria argonensis* can survive prolonged exposure to atmospheric argon.

The assumption "No terrestrial organism's cellular membranes contain cryptobiotic proteins unless that organism can survive prolonged exposure to atmospheric argon" logically guarantees the argument's conclusion.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

The statement is True.
The proposed assumption properly translates to "If an organism has cryptobiotic proteins, then it can survive prolonged exposure to atmospheric argon." When this conditional statement is added to the premise that the lichen possesses cryptobiotic proteins, it deductively guarantees the conclusion that the lichen can survive the argon exposure. It perfectly patches the illegal reversal flaw present in the original argument.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Translate the first premise into formal conditional logic.
Survive Argon →\rightarrow Cryptobiotic Proteins.
The phrase "only if" introduces a necessary condition, placing Cryptobiotic Proteins on the right side of the conditional arrow.
2
Translate the second premise and the argument's conclusion.
Premise 2: *Verrucaria argonensis* has Cryptobiotic Proteins. Conclusion: *Verrucaria argonensis* Survives Argon.
This identifies the explicit facts provided and the ultimate claim the author is trying to prove.
3
Identify the logical gap in the argument.
The argument commits a reversal flaw. It assumes that satisfying the necessary condition (Cryptobiotic Proteins) guarantees the sufficient condition (Survive Argon). To fix this, we need an assumption stating: Cryptobiotic Proteins →\rightarrow Survive Argon.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the gap between the provided premises and the conclusion to guarantee the conclusion with 100% certainty.
4
Translate the proposed assumption into formal logic.
"No X unless Y" translates to "If X then Y." Thus, the assumption means: Cryptobiotic Proteins →\rightarrow Survive Argon.
Proper conditional translation of the word "unless" is required to see if the assumption matches our required logical bridge.
5
Evaluate if the translated assumption guarantees the conclusion.
Yes. Applying "Cryptobiotic Proteins →\rightarrow Survive Argon" to the established fact that "*Verrucaria argonensis* has Cryptobiotic Proteins" deductively guarantees that "*Verrucaria argonensis* Survives Argon."
The assumption provides the exact logical bridge needed to make the argument deductively valid.

Key Concept

Conditional Logic Translation and Sufficient Assumptions
Question 24Question →

Biologist: A localized ecosystem can successfully recover from the abrupt loss of its apex predator only if the population of its primary consumers is actively restricted and the habitat's foundational flora remains largely intact. In the Veridian Valley ecosystem, a viral pathogen recently eradicated the native cougar population, which served as the sole apex predator. Although state wildlife officials have implemented an aggressive culling program that is successfully restricting the population of primary consumers, the Veridian Valley ecosystem will nevertheless fail to recover from the loss of the cougars.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the biologist's conclusion to be properly drawn?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: In any ecosystem where aggressive culling programs are utilized to restrict primary consumers, the foundational flora does not remain largely intact.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that in any ecosystem where aggressive culling programs are utilized, the foundational flora does not remain largely intact.
The argument concludes that the ecosystem will not recover. According to the first sentence, recovery requires TWO things: restricting primary consumers AND keeping foundational flora intact. The stimulus tells us the first condition (restricting consumers) is being met through an aggressive culling program. Therefore, the only way to guarantee the ecosystem will NOT recover is to establish that the second condition (intact flora) is failing. The correct option links a known fact about Veridian Valley (it uses an aggressive culling program) to the exact outcome we need (the flora does not remain largely intact). If this option is true, Veridian Valley fails a necessary condition, proving definitively that it will not recover.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Map the formal logic in the biologist's first sentence.
Recover -> (Primary Consumers Restricted AND Flora Intact). Contrapositive: (NOT Primary Consumers Restricted) OR (NOT Flora Intact) -> NOT Recover.
Identifying the conditional relationships is essential when 'only if' introduces necessary conditions for an outcome.
2
Analyze the specific facts provided about the Veridian Valley.
Fact 1: Lost apex predator. Fact 2: Primary Consumers ARE restricted (via an aggressive culling program).
We must determine which parts of the conditional chain are currently met or unmet by the given scenario.
3
Identify the conclusion and determine the logical gap.
Conclusion: Will NOT recover. Since the first necessary condition (Restricted Consumers) is MET, the only way to mathematically guarantee the conclusion (NOT Recover) via the contrapositive is to prove that the second necessary condition (Flora Intact) FAILS.
A sufficient assumption must mathematically force the conclusion to be true based on the established rules.
4
Find an assumption that forces the required failure condition.
We need an assumption proving Veridian Valley's flora is NOT intact. An assumption linking the known fact ('aggressive culling program') to the required outcome ('flora NOT intact') bridges the gap perfectly.
Connecting an established premise to the missing piece completes the logical chain.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption in formal logic involving compound necessary conditions (AND/OR). To force the failure of a sufficient condition, one must trigger the contrapositive by ensuring at least one necessary condition is not met.
Question 25Question →

Match each flawed argument (which lacks a necessary premise to be logically valid) with the sufficient assumption that, if added to the premises, would allow its conclusion to be properly drawn.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Only candidates with a significant background in international relations were considered for the ambassadorial position. Ms. Vance was considered for the position. Thus, it is certain that Ms. Vance is fluent in at least three languages.
Several of the medieval manuscripts found in the northern monastery feature a unique dialect. This specific dialect was not written by any scribe native to the northern province. Hence, some of the manuscripts found in the northern monastery must have been transported there from outside the province.
If the regulatory bill passes, the cost of raw materials will rise. If the cost of raw materials rises, smaller production firms will be compelled to merge. Consequently, if the regulatory bill passes, there will inevitably be a subsequent drop in the sector's innovation metrics.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct matches pair the ambassadorial argument with the rule connecting international background to fluency, the manuscript argument with the rule about non-native dialects implying outside transportation, and the regulatory bill argument with the rule linking firm mergers to innovation drops.
Each correct pair successfully identifies the unstated premise that mathematically guarantees the truth of the conclusion when added to the existing premises. The ambassadorial argument requires a direct link from background to fluency. The manuscript argument requires a universal rule linking non-native origins to outside transportation. The regulatory argument requires the final link in a conditional chain from merging to an innovation drop.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the ambassadorial argument (Argument 1).
Premises: Vance was considered, and considered candidates have an international relations background. Conclusion: Vance is fluent in three languages.
To identify the deductive gap, which is the missing link between 'international relations background' and 'fluency in three languages'.
2
Match the logical gap for Argument 1.
The assumption 'All persons possessing a significant background in international relations are fluent in at least three languages' correctly bridges this gap.
It acts as the universal sufficient condition to logically guarantee the conclusion about Ms. Vance.
3
Analyze the manuscript argument (Argument 2).
Premises: Manuscripts feature a dialect not written by native scribes. Conclusion: Manuscripts were transported from outside the province.
To identify the deductive gap, which is the rule stating that possessing non-native dialects implies the document was transported from outside.
4
Match the logical gap for Argument 2.
The assumption 'Any document featuring a dialect not written by native scribes of a given region must have been transported there from outside that region' provides the required universal rule.
It perfectly bridges the premise's facts to the conclusion's categorical claim.
5
Analyze the regulatory bill argument (Argument 3).
Premises form a chain: Bill passes -> Costs rise -> Firms merge. Conclusion: Bill passes -> Innovation drops.
To isolate the missing final link in the logical chain, which is 'Firms merge -> Innovation drops'.
6
Match the logical gap for Argument 3.
The assumption 'Whenever smaller production firms are compelled to merge, there is a subsequent drop in the sector's innovation metrics' supplies the missing link.
It completes the conditional chain, mathematically guaranteeing the conclusion.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption (Identifying the missing logical bridge that makes a conclusion 100% valid)
Question 26Question →

Art Historian: Extensive chemical analysis confirms that the newly discovered portrait *Lady in Blue* contains genuine ultramarine pigment. Historical records demonstrate that only paintings created prior to the eighteenth century contain genuine ultramarine pigment. Therefore, *Lady in Blue* is undoubtedly a highly valuable artwork.

Statement: The assumption 'Any painting that is highly valuable was created prior to the eighteenth century' is a sufficient assumption that, if added to the premises, logically guarantees the art historian's conclusion.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The statement is false because the provided assumption is an illegal reversal. The argument establishes that the painting is from before the eighteenth century, and concludes it is highly valuable. To guarantee this conclusion, the rule must be 'If created before the eighteenth century, then highly valuable.' The proposed assumption is 'If highly valuable, then created before the eighteenth century,' which tells us nothing about a painting we already know is old. It fails to logically prove the conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the premises and map the conditional logic.
Premise 1: Lady in Blue contains genuine ultramarine. Premise 2: Genuine ultramarine → Created prior to the eighteenth century. Inference: Lady in Blue was created prior to the eighteenth century.
Understanding the established facts is necessary before determining what logical link is missing.
2
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: Lady in Blue → Highly valuable.
The conclusion is the endpoint that the sufficient assumption must mathematically guarantee.
3
Determine the missing logical link (the correct sufficient assumption).
The argument needs to bridge the gap from the inference (Created prior to the eighteenth century) to the conclusion (Highly valuable). The correct assumption is: Created prior to the eighteenth century → Highly valuable.
A sufficient assumption must trigger the conclusion when combined with the existing premises.
4
Evaluate the proposed assumption in the statement.
The proposed assumption is 'Highly valuable → Created prior to the eighteenth century'. This is the reverse of the needed link and does not guarantee that the Lady in Blue is highly valuable.
We must verify if the given statement matches the required logical bridge.

Key Concept

Evaluating Sufficient Assumptions and identifying Illegal Reversals in conditional logic.
Question 27Question →

Consider the following argument by a linguist:

Any constructed language that lacks a mechanism for expressing counterfactuals cannot be fully adopted as a primary language by a speech community. The newly developed language, Novial-X, lacks complex temporal modifiers. Therefore, Novial-X will never be fully adopted as a primary language by a speech community.

The assumption that 'any constructed language that lacks a mechanism for expressing counterfactuals also lacks complex temporal modifiers' is sufficient to logically guarantee the linguist's conclusion.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The statement is false because the proposed premise fails to guarantee the conclusion. It provides an illegal reversal of the necessary deductive bridge. We must prove Novial-X lacks counterfactuals, but the proposed premise only tells us that lacking counterfactuals guarantees lacking temporal modifiers.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's formal logic structure.
Premise 1: If no counterfactual mechanism → cannot be adopted. Premise 2: Novial-X lacks temporal modifiers. Conclusion: Novial-X cannot be adopted.
Isolating the premises and conclusion is essential for finding the deductive gap.
2
Determine the exact bridge required to guarantee the conclusion.
To conclude that Novial-X cannot be adopted, we must prove it meets the condition in Premise 1 (lacking a counterfactual mechanism). Since we only know it lacks temporal modifiers, the required bridge is: If lacks temporal modifiers → lacks counterfactual mechanism.
A sufficient assumption must logically guarantee the conclusion by perfectly connecting the provided evidence to the required condition.
3
Evaluate the proposed assumption against the required bridge.
The proposed assumption is: If lacks counterfactual mechanism → lacks temporal modifiers. This is the exact reverse of the required bridge.
Adding a reversed conditional statement commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent and fails to guarantee the conclusion.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption and Conditional Logic Reversals
Question 28Question →

Financial analyst: Any regional bank that aggressively expands its commercial lending operations faces increased regulatory scrutiny. Over the past year, Sentinel Bank has aggressively expanded its commercial lending operations. It is clear, therefore, that Sentinel Bank will have to hire additional internal compliance officers.

The conclusion of the financial analyst's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Every regional bank that faces increased regulatory scrutiny is required to hire additional internal compliance officers.

Answer

The correct assumption is that every regional bank facing increased regulatory scrutiny is required to hire additional internal compliance officers.
The correct answer perfectly bridges the gap in the argument's logic. The premises establish that Sentinel Bank faces increased regulatory scrutiny. By adding the universal rule that ANY bank facing such scrutiny MUST hire additional internal compliance officers, the conclusion regarding Sentinel Bank becomes logically undeniable.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: Sentinel Bank will have to hire additional internal compliance officers.
This is the claim the analyst is ultimately trying to prove, signaled by 'It is clear, therefore, that...'
2
Identify the premises provided to support the conclusion.
Premise 1: Aggressively expanding commercial lending -> Increased regulatory scrutiny. Premise 2: Sentinel Bank -> Aggressively expanded commercial lending.
Breaking down the argument into conditional logic reveals what has been established as fact.
3
Determine the intermediate conclusion supported by the premises.
Because Sentinel Bank expanded its lending, it must face increased regulatory scrutiny.
Combining Premise 1 and Premise 2 yields a new deduced fact about Sentinel Bank.
4
Identify the logical gap between the intermediate conclusion and the final conclusion.
The argument jumps from 'Sentinel Bank faces increased regulatory scrutiny' to 'Sentinel Bank will have to hire additional internal compliance officers.'
For the argument to be 100% valid, there must be a rule connecting the established fact (scrutiny) to the unproven claim (hiring officers).
5
Formulate the sufficient assumption that bridges the gap.
If a bank faces increased regulatory scrutiny, then it must hire additional internal compliance officers.
Adding this conditional statement to the premises creates an unbroken chain of logic from Sentinel Bank's actions directly to the conclusion.

Key Concept

Identifying Deductive Gaps and Validating Arguments
Question 29Question →

Match each of the following incomplete arguments with the sufficient assumption that, if added as a premise, would logically guarantee its conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Because the national transit subsidy was repealed, commuting costs for suburban residents will rise. Consequently, retail sales in suburban districts will sharply decline.
The soil in the eastern valley contains unusually high levels of iridium. Therefore, the valley must have been the site of a prehistoric meteorite impact.
The proposed zoning ordinance will allow for the construction of high-density housing units. Thus, the ordinance will successfully reduce the city's average rent prices.
The disciplinary board reached its verdict without allowing the accused to cross-examine witnesses. As a result, the board's verdict is procedurally invalid.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Argument 1 matches with the rising commuting costs assumption. Argument 2 matches with the iridium explanation assumption. Argument 3 matches with the high-density housing assumption. Argument 4 matches with the cross-examination assumption.
Each correct pairing provides the exact conditional relationship needed to bridge the logical gap in the argument. By explicitly stating that the premise condition guarantees the conclusion condition, the assumption renders the argument completely valid.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze each incomplete argument to identify the stated premise and the final conclusion.
Isolated the logical gap in each argument (e.g., in the first argument, the gap is between rising commuting costs and declining retail sales).
Identifying the gap is necessary to know what the missing bridge must be.
2
Scan the available assumptions for conditional statements that link the premise terms directly to the conclusion terms.
Found corresponding conditional or universal statements for each argument's specific vocabulary.
A sufficient assumption must guarantee the conclusion, typically by forming a direct logical link from the evidence to the claim.
3
Verify that applying the chosen assumption to the premise definitively proves the conclusion without any remaining loopholes.
Each matched assumption forces its respective conclusion to be true.
Ensures the assumption is logically sufficient rather than merely necessary.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption
Question 30Question →

Political theorist: A democratic government is legitimate only if it governs with the consent of the governed. Recent independent surveys demonstrate that a majority of the citizens in the nation of Oakhaven strongly oppose the current government's sweeping economic reforms. Therefore, it is clear that the government of Oakhaven has lost its legitimacy.

Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the political theorist's conclusion to be properly drawn?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Any government whose sweeping economic reforms are strongly opposed by a majority of its citizens fails to govern with the consent of the governed.

Answer

The correct assumption is that any government whose sweeping economic reforms are strongly opposed by a majority of its citizens fails to govern with the consent of the governed.
The argument requires a logical bridge between the citizens' opposition to economic policies and the withdrawal of their overall consent to be governed. By establishing a universal rule that majority opposition to sweeping economic reforms guarantees that a government fails to govern with the consent of the governed, this assumption perfectly completes the logical chain. When combined with the premises, it forces the conclusion to be absolutely true.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the conclusion.
The main conclusion is that the government of Oakhaven has lost its legitimacy.
Identifying the final claim is always the critical first step in evaluating an argument's structure.
2
Analyze the premises.
Premise 1 states that legitimacy requires governing with the consent of the governed. Premise 2 states that a majority of Oakhaven citizens strongly oppose the government's current economic reforms.
We must identify the exact evidence provided to see what is missing in the logical chain.
3
Identify the logical gap.
The argument makes a leap from the fact that 'citizens oppose economic reforms' to the conclusion that the government has 'lost legitimacy' (which, based on the first premise, means it no longer governs with their consent).
A sufficient assumption must explicitly provide this missing link to force the conclusion to follow with 100% certainty.
4
Formulate the required bridge.
We need a conditional rule stating that if a majority opposes a government's economic reforms, then that government fails to govern with the consent of the governed.
Applying this rule to Oakhaven's situation directly triggers the condition for losing legitimacy.

Key Concept

Bridging logical gaps in conditional arguments
Question 31Question →

Sports psychologist: Any athlete who consistently practices mental imagery techniques experiences a significant reduction in pre-game anxiety. Furthermore, all athletes who experience a significant reduction in pre-game anxiety are able to maintain their concentration during the decisive moments of a competition. Thus, we can conclude that any athlete who consistently practices mental imagery techniques will achieve peak physical performance during tournaments.

Which one of the following is an assumption that, if true, allows the sports psychologist's conclusion to be properly drawn?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Any athlete who maintains concentration during the decisive moments of a competition will achieve peak physical performance during tournaments.

Answer

The correct answer states that any athlete who maintains concentration during decisive moments will achieve peak physical performance.
The argument's premises establish a chain: practicing mental imagery leads to reduced anxiety, which in turn leads to maintaining concentration (Imagery -> Concentration). The conclusion attempts to prove that practicing mental imagery leads to peak physical performance (Imagery -> Peak Performance). To make this conclusion 100% valid, we must guarantee that maintaining concentration leads to peak physical performance. The correct answer provides exactly this bridge: Concentration -> Peak Performance.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument's premises into conditional statements.
Premise 1: Mental Imagery -> Reduced Anxiety. Premise 2: Reduced Anxiety -> Maintain Concentration.
Identifying the formal logic chain allows us to see exactly what facts the author has established.
2
Identify the argument's final conclusion.
Conclusion: Mental Imagery -> Peak Physical Performance.
We must know the exact endpoint the argument is trying to logically prove.
3
Determine the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises link 'Mental Imagery' to 'Maintain Concentration'. The conclusion links 'Mental Imagery' to a new term: 'Peak Physical Performance'. The gap is between 'Maintain Concentration' and 'Peak Physical Performance'.
To guarantee the conclusion, we must find an assumption that connects the end of the premise chain to the new term in the conclusion.
4
Formulate the sufficient assumption.
Maintain Concentration -> Peak Physical Performance.
Adding this statement to the premises creates a complete, unbroken chain from Mental Imagery to Peak Physical Performance.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption conditional bridging
PreviousPage 2 / 2
Sufficient Assumption Practice Questions — LSAT — Page 2 | Examkin