Question Type:
Match the Reasoning
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: T won't be able to file on time.
Evidence:
Filing on time ---requires--> acct prepares it AND acct does not ask for add'l docs.
If acct. prepares it --> acct. WILL ask for add'l docs.
Answer Anticipation:
Sound argument. The 1st sentence gives us some thing, X, that has two requirements, A and B. But then we learn that if A occurs, then B will not occur. So clearly, X is not achievable. I would be looking for two premises: both condiitonal. One of them needs to have an "and" on the right side. If X, then A and B. The other conditional needs to make A and B seem mutually exclusive. And then the conclusion will say not-X.
Correct Answer:
E
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Bail early. There's no "X --> A and B" conditional.
(B) Bail early. There's no "X --> A and B" conditional.
(C) Bail early. There's no "X --> A and B" conditional.
(D) Bail early. There's no "X --> A and B" conditional.
(E) Yes! Relaxing vacation (X) ---requires---> well behaved kids (A) and no suspicion (B). And the 2nd premise says that (A) and (B) are mutually exclusive. And the conclusion says "not relaxing vacation".
Takeaway/Pattern: When the original argument uses conditional logic or any other highly symbolic form of deriving its conclusion (f.e. quantified logic, like "most + most"), then we can really aggressively read the answer choices intially seeing if they even have the symbolic ingredients we need, before we think any harder about them. The most signature symbolic ingredient in this argument was its first premise: "X --> A and B". It's easy to read for a conditional with an "and" on the consequence. A through D did not have that, so very little time should have been spent looking at them. We shouldn't have made it to the end of any of them. Once we see the "and" conditional we were craving in E, we can't just pick it, but we can thoughtfully confirm it matches and then pick it.
#officialexplanation