Q24 - Since Mayor Drabble always

[meredith.segal]

This is the question about Mayor Drabble's political debts.

I agree entirely that A is a good answer, but I am wondering why E is not an equally good answer. As we know, since it's the LSAT, there must be a reason that each wrong answer is wrong. As I see it, we know that Mayor Drabble will repay her political debt to Lee in some way, but there may be some way other than through this particular appointment. Perhaps Lee has long wanted three different jobs, and Mayor Drabble could repay the debt just as well by appointing Lee as the head of the recreation division. What am I missing? Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The reason why answer choice (A) is better than answer choice (E) rests within a proper understanding of the question stem. The question asks us to find an assumption upon which the argument depends. Clearly, this question is asking for an assumption of the argument. What's not so apparent and is not always taken into consideration is "what kind of assumption are they looking for?" There are sufficient assumptions, that ask you to find an answer choice that would guarantee the conclusion follows, and then there are necessary assumptions that ask you to find what must be true in order for the conclusion to have a chance of being true.

This question is a necessary assumption because it asks for what the argument DEPENDS ON.

So, the easy answer to your question is that answer choice (E) guarantees the conclusion follows, whereas, answer choice (A) is needed for the conclusion to follow.

Here's the argument

Evidence
Mayor Drabble always repays her debts on time. Mayor Drabble owes Lee for his support. Lee wants the job as the new head of the arts commission.

Conclusion
Mayor Drabble will ALMOST certainly appoint Lee as the new head of the arts commission.

Gaps
1) Lee will get what he wants.
2) No one in line for repayment is in front of Lee for the position.
3) Lee won't be repaid in some other way.

(A) fills the 2nd gap (hold for now)
(B) doesn't need to be true, because that political debt could be repaid in some other way
(C) doesn't need to be true, because that person might be willing to accept the position as the new head of the arts commission, but they may not want it or that person may not be owed enough to be given such a position.
(D) doesn't need to be true, because this could be a criterion that Mayor Drabble will use and Lee may be qualified nonetheless.
(E) fills the 3rd gap (hold for now)

Answer choice (E) seems to go at the 3rd gap enumerated above and answer choice (A) seems to go at the 2nd gap enumerated above. The problem with answer choice (E) is that it fills the gap too well. On necessary assumptions be wary of answer choices that guarantee the conclusion will follow but aren't needed for the conclusion to follow. Suppose there were other ways Mayor Drabble could repay the debt to Lee, there still is the possibility that she would "almost certainly" make Lee the head of the arts commission. For example, he could have a 2nd and 3rd choice for repayment, but almost certainly get his first choice (head of the arts commission).

Answer choice (A) does need to be true, because if it weren't, then it wouldn't be "almost certain" that Lee would get the position. In fact, if someone were both owed a longer standing political debt who could as suitably be repaid by appointment as head of the arts commission, then it wouldn't be "almost certain" that Lee would get the job.

[geverett]

Hey Matt,
I think what tripped me up about A is that even if he/she in answer choice A could suitably be repaid by an appointment to the arts commission does that still not leave open the possibility that perhaps they could suitably be repaid by an appointment to another position as well? Or maybe if the answer choice had closed that gap by saying they could only suitably be repaid by a commission to the arts commission then that would qualify this as a sufficient assumption which is of course not what we need. Thoughts?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think what tripped me up about A is that even if he/she in answer choice A could suitably be repaid by an appointment to the arts commission does that still not leave open the possibility that perhaps they could suitably be repaid by an appointment to another position as well?

It does leave open the possibility that the person could be repaid to another position, but it would still challenge the conclusion that the arts commission would almost certainly be headed by Lee. just the fact that there's someone else makes it less than nearly certain.

Or maybe if the answer choice had closed that gap by saying they could only suitably be repaid by a commission to the arts commission then that would qualify this as a sufficient assumption which is of course not what we need. Thoughts?

I'm also not certain that this would guarantee the conclusion. This would preclude anyone else from being best suited for the position, but it wouldn't guarantee that it's the best form of repayment to Lee. And what drives this whole thing is that Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts.

But good points, and the distinction between necessary and sufficient is enormous and very challenging.

[u2manish]

Hello there,

I was wondering how does "as soon as possible" requires that there in no one else inline before Lee for the political debt to be paid.

What troubles me is that there could still be somebody before line and the mayor could still pay the debt to Lee almost certainly...is it not ? what am i missing?


Please share thoughts for us to understand this in a better light.

Cheers,
Best,
M

[timmydoeslsat]

Hello there,

I was wondering how does "as soon as possible" requires that there in no one else inline before Lee for the political debt to be paid.

What troubles me is that there could still be somebody before line and the mayor could still pay the debt to Lee almost certainly...is it not ? what am i missing?

You are close on this one.

If we are to establish the conclusion of Mayor Drabble almost certainly appointing Lee to be the new head of the arts commission, we need to know a couple of things.

1. We need to make sure that there is not a guy named Timmy that the mayor owes big time AND that Timmy could be fine with being named as the new head of the arts commission.

Essentially what I am saying is that to establish this conclusion, it is necessary that this is not like the movie Ground Hog Day where a situation like this one is already ahead of Lee.

[dean.won]

Can i treat almost certainly as certainly??
Its confusing becuz ALMOST seems to make any assumption non necessary

I chose d cuz a and e seemed to imply stronger assumptions than what was needed for something that is ALMOST certain

[griffin.811]

Can i treat almost certainly as certainly??
Its confusing becuz ALMOST seems to make any assumption non necessary

I chose d cuz a and e seemed to imply stronger assumptions than what was needed for something that is ALMOST certain

Thats walking a fine line (certainly v. almost certainly).

The best thing here is to negate.

We have: MD pays debts ASAP, so she will likely appoint Lee head of art.

Well if she owes someone, and she has owed that person longer than she has owed Lee, and that person also wants the Head of Arts job, wouldn't she give this other person the job first since she repays debt asap?

A would destroy the argument when negated and therefore must be the answer.

D is wrong because Lee's "qualifications" are out of scope as they are never mentioned. But imagine for a second that we don't eliminate this because of scope. Even if Lee's qualifications were relevant, she may still be able to appoint him. We have nothing that tells us he is NOT qualified. Who knows, maybe he is.

E is wrong because while it may be the only way to repay Lee, it may also be the only way to repay someone that she has been in debt to for a longer period of time as well. In this case, Lee still would not get the job.

If it said this was the only way to repay Lee, AND, she has owed Lee LONGER THAN anyone else, this could be a correct answer to a sufficient assumption question.

[p.haeri]

If we want to use the negating technique to answer this, would this analysis make sense to cross out E)

Negated form: "It is NOT the only way that MD can adequately....."

this opens the possibility that there are other ways he can repay Lee but does not neglect the fact that he would almost certainly repay Lee by appointing him to the head the arts commission specially since that is what Lee most desires.

but for answer A, if we neglect the answer:

"Mayor Drabble has political debt that is both longer standing than the one..."
If this is true MD could as likely (certainly) give the position to the other person and Lee.


Does this make sense?

[redcobra21]

"Suppose there were other ways Mayor Drabble could repay the debt to Lee, there still is the possibility that she would "almost certainly" make Lee the head of the arts commission. For example, he could have a 2nd and 3rd choice for repayment, but almost certainly get his first choice (head of the arts commission)."

Hey Matt

If you negate (E) and bring up other ways that the Mayor can repay Lee, doesn't this hurt the conclusion that she will "almost certainly" appoint him to the arts job? It seems like you'd have to add an additional assumption about this distinction between first, second, and third choice which I am not sure is apparent in the stimulus

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work p.haeri, you've got that correct!

Hey Matt

If you negate (E) and bring up other ways that the Mayor can repay Lee, doesn't this hurt the conclusion that she will "almost certainly" appoint him to the arts job? It seems like you'd have to add an additional assumption about this distinction between first, second, and third choice which I am not sure is apparent in the stimulus

Not necessarily. Remember, the argument spells out that Lee wants the job as the new head of the arts commission and has wanted it for a long time. Negating answer choice (E) to say that there are other ways Mayor Drabble could repay her debt to Lee doesn't diminish the fact that Lee wants the position as the head of the arts commission. There could be other ways Mayor Drabble could repay the debt but knows that Lee would like the debt repaid with this particular appointment. Because the conclusion is not absolute, but rather highly likely, it still does remain likely that Lee will be appointed head of the arts commission since that's the position he would like, it would repay the debt, and no one else is likely to get the position instead of Lee.

Hope that helps!

[miller.solomon]

How does "repays debts ASAP" help determine who gets priority between someone who's been waiting a year and someone who's been waiting 10 years?

Mayor should repay 1 year ASAP and 10 years ASAP. Even though 10 years is more of an outlier for the mayor, how do we know the mayor deals with outliers before everyone else?

In other words, ASAP refers to the repayment of a single debt, not a comparison between two debts. "As soon as possible" does not mean "deals with the longest wait first".

What am I missing?