Struthers College has built its reputation for academic

Why is D incorrect ? If we negate option D i think then the conclusion breaks down .

The conclusion is about a expected decline in the contributions next year since the football team is losing this year.
If we negate option D, we get that the team will not continue its losing streak next year meaning that it will win next year. Hence this destroys the conclusion about the expected decline.

Where am i going wrong in this explanation ?

I have wrongly chosen 'E'...Experts pls explain how C is a correct and E is wrong...

Thanks,
A

Lets highlight the conclusion in the stem:
Struthers College has built its reputation for academic excellence largely on significant contributions from wealthy alumni who are avid fans of the school’s football team. Although the team has won more national championships over the years than any other team in its division, this year it did not even win the division title, and

so

Struthers College can expect to see a decline in alumni contributions next year.

Since we need find assumption, we need to find an missing link that would solidify the conclusion and say YES ! The alumni contribution is going to be less next year.
How can confirm that ?Lets first analyze the data
What is the data in hand about the team ? The team has done poorly this year. but earlier ? It has always been the top team pulling out great performance
What is the data in hand about alumni ? They are fan of the team so far. That means they were fans when the team was continuously winning .
This year the team fumbled. If the a large proportion alumni loose interest in the team now , then those dishearten fans from alumni will not contribute to college
And hence we can confirm that alumni contribution is going to tumble

Now lets look at C
Some Struthers alumni contribute to the college because they enjoy seeing its football team win.
-If they only contribute because they enjoy seeing their college team winning , then dishearten by its poor performance this year they will be reluctant to contribute
Therefore it confirms our little analysis before
Hence the answer

(E) As a group, the college’s alumni will have at least as much discretionary money to give away next year as this year.
If this is true ? they will contribute
If this is false ? they will not contribute.
Fine ! but does it touch the conclusion any way ? is it confirming - Because the team did not perform well , alumni will not contribute ?
Nooo. Had it been false,It would say- Because they do not have money they will not contribute.
Since it is not touching the conclusion , it is not the answer.

The college’s football team lost this year.
Therefore, alumni contributions are about to decrease.
But this argument depends on a cause-and-effect link between the football team’s performance and the level of alumni contributions, doesn’t it? In other words, it assumes that the alumni who contribute to the college are motivated to do so (at least to some extent) by their interest in the football team and its success. The correct response is (C).

Why is A wrong? when it says reputation ..... largely on significant contributions from wealthy alum....who are avid fans of the football team....

Conclusion:
NO win --------> Alumni contributions are going for a TOSS.

Assumption:

Because of the WIN of the football game ----------> The contributions are being done.

It assumes that the alumni who contribute to the college are motivated to do so
(at least to some extent) by their interest in the football team and its success (WIN).

Answer choice analysis:

(C) Some Struthers alumni contribute to the college because they enjoy seeing its football team win.

!C = NONE of the Struthers alumni contribute to the college because they enjoy seeing its football team WIN.

If ALL of the alumni DO contribute because they do NOT enjoy seeing the WIN of the football game.
Then, why SHOULD the contributions be affected (decline) in the next year?

Meaning - The contributions are NOT going to be affected (decline) in the next year.
Thus, the negation BREAKS the conclusion.


(D) The college’s football team will continue its losing streak next year.

!D = The college’s football team will NOT continue its losing streak next year.
NOT continue losing the streak next year ------does NOT imply-------> the football team will DEFINITELY win. - This negation is a polar-opposite.

We should always target Logical-negation: The logical negation divides the set into two-halves.

NOT loose ----- CAN imply -----> either:

Win - Does NOT weaken the conclusion.

or
Draw - Does weaken the conclusion. ( Draw != Win )


This option CAN sway in both the direction.
Thus, the negation of D does NOT necessarily SHATTER the conclusion.


(E) As a group, the college’s alumni will have at least as much discretionary money to give away next year as this year.

Nowhere in the argument, it is mandated that the alumni need at least as much discretionary money to give away next year as this year.
!E = the college’s alumni will NOT have at least as much discretionary money to give away next year as this year.
Look at this way:

The contributed amount = 20M $
Discretionary money ( Money available for use at the discretion of the user ) alumni have:
This year: 50M $
Next year: 45M $ - 45 < 50 : NOT have at least as much discretionary money
Still, the alumni CAN contribute the last year's contributed amount.

Thus, the negation of E does NOT necessarily SHATTER the conclusion.

Can the word "some" stand for the majority of alumni?

I have same doubt. Can anyone please clarify?

The only formal logical definition of "some" is "more than zero," so as long as we have evidence that some alumni will only give donations if the the team wins. That means there will be a decline in donations so this is an acceptable choice.

Note: We cannot assume that the rest of the alumni will increase their donation size to cover up for the decline unless told explicitly.

Hope this helps!