Q8 - Guideline: It is improper

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Principle-Strengthen

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Mayor acted improperly in awarding street contracts to a company owned by a relative.
Evidence: Company would have been in trouble without winning that contract.
and
Public officials, such as mayor, shouldn't award contracts in a way that benefits (or even appears to benefit) themselves.

Any prephrase?
The guideline allows us to prove that mayor acted improperly, once we establish that awarding the contract benefits, or appears to benefit, the mayor. All we know is that the contract benefits a relative of the mayor. So we need a principle that says something like, "If it benefits the relative's company, it benefits or appears to benefit the mayor."

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) This does nothing to establish benefiting the mayor.

B) Nothing about benefiting the mayor.

C) Nothing about benefiting the mayor.

D) Nothing about benefiting the mayor.

E) Bingo.

Takeaway/Pattern: These are usually solveable up front. You have a rule. You have a verdict. You're normally just looking to see where you're falling short of triggering the rule.

#officialexplanation

[erikwoodward10]

Pretty easy question, and really illustrates the logical nature of sufficient assumption questions.

Abstractly, we're given a guideline that has a conditional statement, SC-->NC. Then we're given an application that shows us that the NC exists. Think of it like any other SA question:

SC-->NC.
-----
Conclusion: NC

How to we get to the NC? By stating the SC, which is in answer choice E. Watch out for C which could been interpreted as a principle underlying the application, but if you understand the logical relationship of what the question asks you to do you will see that this doesn't help out.

[halflate37s]

"family" == "relatives" even though I can have a relative I've never heard of and can build a family with people who are not my relatives.

While working on this question I considered that the mayor could be unaware of the benefit to his relative or even unaware of his relative all together. But I guess in the universe of this question we either do not consider intentionality or assume such intentionality is implied by the mayor "urging" and the benefited being not just a "relative" but one that is both known and liked by (or strategically useful to) the mayor.

I understand that granted my first statement above, applying the guideline strictly, the mayors intentionality or even awareness of his relatives or their circumstances are irrelevant. He may not be guilty of impropriety but he is guilty of making the appearance of it, and the guideline says this should be avoided.