#25 - Cecile's association requires public disclosure of an

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion-SN. The correct answer choice is (C)

Because Cecile's association requires public disclosure of investments in two specific situations only, and Cecile falls into neither category requiring disclosure, the author concludes that there is no reason for her to disclose her investments. The argument can be diagrammed in the following way:

• PDCA= public disclosure required by Cecile's association
  
  PD = public disclosure required (in general)
  
  ADC = Cecile is authorized to disburse funds
  
  PCC = Cecile sits on the board of a petrochemical company
  
  Premise: PDCA → ADC or PCC
  
  Premise: ADC and PCC
  
  ===============================
  
  Conclusion: PD
  
  (the proper conclusion should have been PDCA)

At first glance, this argument seems solid. However, notice that even if the association does not require Cecile to publicly disclose her investments, disclosure may still be warranted for a different reason. What if someone else (such as the IRS) required disclosure? Or what if Cecile had her own reasons for disclosing her investments? Either way, the scope of the author's conclusion is a lot broader than the support provided for it. To justify it, we need to guarantee that the association's requirements provide the only reasons for investment disclosure (i.e. if the associations does not require disclosure, nobody else does):

• PDCA → PD
  
  Or the contrapositive: PD → PDC

Answer choice (C) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): Because the argument is about whether there is any reason for Cecile to publicly disclose her investments at this time, her future appointment to a position that might require public disclosure of investments is irrelevant. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): The possibility of any conflicts of interest, or lack thereof, plays no role in this argument. This answer choice is irrelevant and incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the association requires no disclosure, Cecile would have no reason to disclose. When added to the premises, this answer choice proves the conclusion and is therefore correct.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice does the exact opposite of what is needed: if the timber business on whose board Cecile sits is owned by a petrochemical company, Cecile might have a reason to disclose her investments. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): The nature of Cecile's investments is not the issue in this argument; the reasons for their disclosure is. This answer choice is irrelevant and incorrect.

[bk1111]

Hi, I got this question right but I would like some clarification on the diagramming. I perceived "public disclosure required" to be a necessary condition. Why is it the sufficient condition? Additionally, why is it diagrammed as

" PDCA → ADC or PCC"

and not ADC AND PCC

because the stimulus says only: when (1) ADC, and (2) PCC.

Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there bk1111, thanks for the question. I think there is a good case to be made here for treating this stimulus as setting up a bi-conditional. We know, on the one hand, that if the association requires disclosure then it can ONLY be either due to the authority to disburse funds OR that you sit on the board of a petrochemical company. The ONLY here means those two conditions are necessary. But the argument also uses "required", another necessary indicator, when referring to the disclosure, so it also means that IF you have authority to disburse OR if you sit on the board of a petrochemical co., THEN you must disclose. You could diagram this one as:

PDCA AD or PC

The issue in the conclusion is that it brings up a new idea, "no reason to disclose", when all we know is that there is no requirement to disclose. What if there were some reason to disclose even when it isn't required? Like what if disclosure would improve her chances of getting a promotion, or it would increase others' trust in her, or it would win her a BRAND NEW CAR? (Say that last one in the voice of the guy doing the announcements on pretty much any game show) That would really hurt this argument. Eliminating that possibility - saying that there are no reasons other than the required reasons - will prove that there is, in Cecile's case, no reason to disclose. That's answer C!

Good luck with your studies, and come back for more help here as you need it. We'll be here!

[mN2mmvf]

Hi, I ended up choosing the right answer for this question, but I was confused about choice (C) still. I've seen this sort of flaw/assumption question before where some given sufficient conditions are described, and the question is about the fact that there might be some other sufficient conditions also that would bring about the same result but aren't mentioned...basically playing on the error to view some sufficient conditions known as an exhaustive list.

That seems to be what (C) is going for, and so I chose it mostly because all the other choices seemed obviously wrong. My difficulty was: why does the stimulus say that public disclosure is required "in two cases only"? That would seem to suggest that there *aren't* other reasons for Cecile to be required to disclose her investments, so we would not need to assume that the requirements provide the only reasons there might be for disclosure...we know for a fact that those are the only ones, no unstated assumption is necessary.

[Francis O'Rourke]

There are no other reasons for disclosing investments because of association, but there may be reasons for disclosing based on other reasons. Answer choice (C) closes this possibility.

[bk1111]

Hey there bk1111, thanks for the question. I think there is a good case to be made here for treating this stimulus as setting up a bi-conditional. We know, on the one hand, that if the association requires disclosure then it can ONLY be either due to the authority to disburse funds OR that you sit on the board of a petrochemical company. The ONLY here means those two conditions are necessary. But the argument also uses "required", another necessary indicator, when referring to the disclosure, so it also means that IF you have authority to disburse OR if you sit on the board of a petrochemical co., THEN you must disclose. You could diagram this one as:

PDCA AD or PC

The issue in the conclusion is that it brings up a new idea, "no reason to disclose", when all we know is that there is no requirement to disclose. What if there were some reason to disclose even when it isn't required? Like what if disclosure would improve her chances of getting a promotion, or it would increase others' trust in her, or it would win her a BRAND NEW CAR? (Say that last one in the voice of the guy doing the announcements on pretty much any game show) That would really hurt this argument. Eliminating that possibility - saying that there are no reasons other than the required reasons - will prove that there is, in Cecile's case, no reason to disclose. That's answer C!

Good luck with your studies, and come back for more help here as you need it. We'll be here!

Wow, that switch between requirement and reason is very subtle. Thank you for the explanation. I revisited this question and it makes a lot more sense this time around.

[lathlee]

actually, I do not understand you guys' rationale at all for one critical detail: QUESTION STEM STATES: Cecile's associate requires public discourse of an officer's investments in two cases only: when an officer is authorized to disburse associate funds, AND when an officer sits on the board of a petrochemical company... (then the question stem continues)

PDCA= public disclosure required by Cecile's association

PD = public disclosure required (in general)

ADC = Cecile is authorized to disburse funds

PCC = Cecile sits on the board of a petrochemical company

Premise: PDCA → ADC or PCC

[/quote]

IT shouold be Premise: PDCA → ADC AND PCC

[mN2mmvf]

The stimulus says there are two cases in which disclosure is required. If you diagram the two cases as AND instead of OR, you're saying that there's only one case, and that one case has two conjunctive parts.

You don't have to disclose only when you're simultaneously both an authorized officer and on the board of a petrochemical company. You have to disclose if you are case1) an authorized officer, or case2) on the board of a petrochemical company. (If you happen to be both, then disclosure is still entailed.)

The sentence may have the word "and" in it, but logically it should be diagrammed as OR.

[lathlee]

Makes sense, clears up. I will wait for the final approval from the admins that you are spot on correct

[nicholaspavic]

Yes, I agree with what nM2 wrote about this being an "or" situation when the author said "and" in the stimulus. Thank you both for clearing this up!