#9 - Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption-SN. The correct answer choice is (A)

The stimulus consists of conditional statements:

• Premises:
  Incompetent
  Dismissal Justified OR
  Disloyal
  
  Hastings Incompetent
  
  Conclusion:
  
  Hastings Disloyal

The argument proceeds as if Hastings' dismissal were justified, but never states that it was so. Since you are asked to identify the assumption necessary to the argument, you must choose the response that establishes that Hastings' dismissal was justified.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. First, it supplies the missing link: "Hastings' Dismissal Justified." Second, if Hastings' dismissal were unjustified, the conclusion that Hastings was disloyal could be thrown into a state of uncertainty. When you negate a necessary assumption to a conditional argument, the conclusion will be thrown into a state of uncertainty, not necessarily disproved.

Answer choice (B): The idea that Hastings had a high rank attempts to reply to the irrelevant background information that Hastings had been considered one of the greatest intelligence agents of all time. You are supposed to supply an assumption of the argument, and the argument does not begin until the second sentence of the stimulus, so this response is entirely irrelevant and incorrect.

Answer choice (C): "Disloyal → Dismissal Justified." This response basically a Mistaken Reversal of a condition in the argument. In this argument, the error is that a piece is missing, not that reaching the conclusion demands a Mistaken Reversal.

Answer choice (D): This choice discusses what must be true of "anyone." Since the argument merely attempts to conclude concerning Hastings, it is unnecessary to make assumptions about all people. This choice vastly exceeds the requirements of the argument, and is thus incorrect.

Answer choice (E): "Disloyal or Incompetent → Dismissal Justified." This is a Mistaken Reversal of a condition in the argument. In this argument, the error is that a piece is missing, not that reaching the conclusion demands a Mistaken Reversal.

[mford]

On page 5-58 of the full course books question 25 relates a conditional statement about Hastings. I mapped the conditional statement as follows:
J--> I
or
D
Premise: Not I
Therefore D
---
I thought the test-makers were trying to be cute by making B the correct answer, and I can see the logic that one must assume Hastings is the person in question for the argument to follow, so I picked that. However, I don't quite follow the logic on why A would be the correct answer. Does this have to do with the tentative nature of the way they framed the question of the justification of his dismissal by including "if" at the beginning of the conditional statement---as in, leaving space for the idea that the justification itself being in question? Since Justified is the sufficient condition, does that mean that there are other options one can "pick" from such as unjustified etc.? A very strange question!

[Steve Stein]

It sounds like you got it. The first conditional rule is that if the dismissal was justified, then he was either disloyal or incompetent:



But we know that he was never incompetent, so, if his dismissal was justified, he must have been disloyal:



So, what is the assumption that would force us to conclude that he was disloyal? That the dismissal was justified, as provided by correct answer choice A.

[Johnclem]

I have a problem with this question even though I got it right , here is my train of thoughts and my issue :

1) Hastings was considered one of the greatest intelligence agents .
2) dismissal justified --> incompetent or disloyal ( contra positive : not incompetent and disloyal --> dismissal not justified )
3) he was never incompetent

C: one is forced to conclude he must have been disloyal .



I see the correct answer A as more of a justify question. I find that it guarantees the conclusion . But for a necessary assumption why is it necessary that he's dismissal was justified ? Couldn't the necessary assumption (disloyal ) occur with or without the sufficient ?



Thank you
John

[Adam Brinker]

Hi Johnclem,

Thanks for your question. However, I believe you are actually looking at question #9, not #10. [Admin note: post merged with discussion of question #9]

Please let us know if that helps!

Thanks!

Adam

[Johnclem]

Hi,
I read the explanation. But I still do not understand how negating answer choice A would have any impact on the author's argument .
Regardless of whether of not Hastings dismissal was justified or not , what barring does this have on the necessary condition (disloyal )?



Thanks
John

[David Boyle]

Hi,
I read the explanation. But I still do not understand how negating answer choice A would have any impact on the author's argument .
Regardless of whether of not Hastings dismissal was justified or not , what barring does this have on the necessary condition (disloyal )?



Thanks
John

Hello John,

if we negate it, then how do we get to the disloyalty?

Justified incomp. or disloyal.

But without the "justified", how do we even get to that choice of either "incompetent" or "disloyal"? Nothing is making us go there. So we need that "justified" even to get to the choice above; when we do, then we know that if he's not incompetent, he's disloyal.

Hope this helps,
David

[Nicholas Noyes]

Hi,

So by assuming that the dismissal was justified (sufficient condition) it triggers that Hastings must have been disloyal (necessary condition found in the conclusion) because the stimulus says that it is shown that Hasting was competent. I originally selected answer D but was narrowed down between (A&D), why is D wrong because it uses the wording "anyone"? I understand now why A is right but unsure totally why D is wrong.

Thanks,
Nicholas

[Robert Carroll]

Nicholas,

Answer choice (D) is wrong exactly because it applies to anyone. This is an Assumption question. We need no assumptions about anyone but Hastings to make this particular argument work, so we don't want to go beyond this case - otherwise, we're exceeding what's necessary, and the answer will go wrong by being too strong.

Robert Carroll

[Mastering_LSAT]

Hi there,

Could you please clarify a couple of points with this question?

1) Does the argument's conclusion ("...Hastings must have been disloyal") mean 100% certainty? Does "must have been" convey 100% certainty on the LSAT, if used in the argument's conclusion?

2) I understand why "Hastings's dismissal was justified" is a necessary assumption. But isn't it also true that in this question the correct answer choice serves to justify the conclusion as well (i.e., serves as a sufficient assumption)? I remember from the LR Bible discussion regarding necessary vs sufficient, and it seems to me that the correct answer choice "Hastings's dismissal was justified" is both a necessary (if it's negated, then the conclusion "Hastings must have been disloyal" may or may not be true) and sufficient (the correct answer choice also guarantees the conclusion to be 100% true) assumption.

Would greatly appreciate your help with this. Thank you!