Most people who run for an elected office do so because they want to be of service to the public. If, however, an official publishes a book revealing information that had not previously been made public and profits from the publication, that person’s political career has inarguably come to an end because he or she will never again be trusted by other members of the government.

The conclusion that a public official who publishes a book has ended his or her political career rests on which of the following assumptions?

A) Most government officials seek office in order to serve the public.
B) Public officials must often keep information secret.
C) Trust is essential for a successful career as a public official.
D) Members of the government frequently do not trust authors of books.
E) Public officials will seek to profit from their access to privileged information if given the opportunity.

Isnt C a off as it mentions Trust is essential for a successful career as a public official. Nowhere does the question mention successful career but whether political career has [strike]inarguably[/strike] come to an end.

Even successful careers end.

The questions asks for the assumption on which this argument is based. Once this assumption is negated or fails, the argument fails. It is solely on the basis of this assumption that the argument is valid.

Now let us consider statement C
It says that trust is essential for a successful career as a public official. Now, when negated the meaning becomes that trust is not very essential to be a public officer. An untrustworthy person could also serve as a public official. If so, any person, even if discloses private information, should work as a public officer irrespective of whether he/she is trusted by the members of the government. However, the argument says that this cannot happen and thus the sentence rests upon this assumption.

Let us now consider argument D. Your explanation of D does make sense. However, not the highlighted word below

Members of the government frequently do not trust authors of books.

This means that members of parliament frequently do not trust authors of books but sometimes they do. Thinking in that order, they might eliminate most publishers of book but they might let some stay and continue serving as a public officer. Since, D does give us scope where the argument is weak, this cannot be the assumption.

Remember to always pay attention to any words that generalize like always,sometime etc. They most probably will have a catch. When you see such words in any option, pay extra attention to those options.

Hope this helps!


_________________

Thanks
Kris
Instructor at Aspire4GMAT

Visit us at http://www.aspire4gmat.com

Post your queries
Join our free GMAT course

New blog: How to get that 700+
New blog: Data Sufficiency Tricks


Press Kudos if this helps!

This would have made it more difficult and probably wrong.

If you consider this as option D, then negating this statement would lead you to believe that members of parliament trust authors who are running for elections. The argument states that the members will ask such authors to step down as they wouldn't trust them. Both oppose each other and hence option D might have been the assumption.

Of course then this would not be a GMAT like question as it has two possible answers.

Hope that helps!


_________________

Thanks
Kris
Instructor at Aspire4GMAT

Visit us at http://www.aspire4gmat.com

Post your queries
Join our free GMAT course

New blog: How to get that 700+
New blog: Data Sufficiency Tricks


Press Kudos if this helps!