Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possi

E is more interesting than I thought. E is a trap but the keyword "only" and "adequately repay" almost uncloaks it ! I'm sure the reporter is not concerned whether the mayor can repay her debt "adequately". E is either out of scope / irrelevant.

And E does not strengthens the argument - mayor's integrity can be questioned by the reporter himself who wrote this argument. The political reporter is not questioning the integrity of the Mayor but he wants to strengthen it.

"Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible". The premise means that if NO other debt is longstanding she will be obliged to pay her debt at the FIRST available opportunity
A is correct.

suitably / adequately are the keywords one should be wary.

Guys,
I believe the key here is "AS SOON AS" Possible. If you get that then this is a cake walk.
"Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible"

Nicely put, vigneshceg. So much of critical reasoning is picking up on the key words used in the stimulus. If you can get the right answer by fishing out the correct wording, you get the answer quickly and you feel confident about your answer, two key elements for GMAT success!

Thanks!
-Ron

Since the Mayor repays her debt as soon as possible, she must repay the debt to the one she owes first i.e. she must repay the oldest debt first, as soon as possible.

Also, we don't have to find the inference/conclusion in the question. We have to find the assumption i.e. what has been assumed by the author to arrive at the conclusion. It may or may not actually be true. We just have to find that which the author has ASSUMED to be true.
You might want to go through some theory of assumption questions to get a clearer understanding.

Premise 1:Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible,

Premise 2:Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election

Premise 3: Lee has wanted that job of head of the arts commission.for a long time,

Conclusion: Drabble will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission.

Since this is an assumption question, the negation of right choice should,

(i) negate the premise or,
(ii) negate the conclusion

To do (i), the negation of the choice should show

(a) that Drabble does not always repay her political debts as soon as possible. This will negate premise 1. Or,
(b) that Drabble did not really owe Lee much. This would negate premise 2. Or,
(c) that Lee really did not want the job that Drabble has to offer. This will weaken premise 3.

To do (ii), the choice should show there is another reason why Drabble would not appoint Lee to the job. That would override the premises given and in turn would negate the conclusion.

Only negation of choice A does one of the above because it means that Drabble has a political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission. The underlined parts indicate exactly the reason why Lee was considered but because the debt this choice talks about being of longer standing, and since Drabble repays her debt as soon as possible, Lee would not be given top priority for the job. Thus this negates the conclusion.

Negation of Choice E which is, Drabble could repay her political debt to Lee in ways other than by giving him the job he wanted,

This does not do (i)a , (i)b, (i)c or (ii) as indicated above i.e., it neither negates the premises nor the conclusion. So it is not the answer.

Nice explanation!

I also picked E despite looking for a MUST BE TRUE option. In many ways this is similar to the weakner alternate cause discussion I've seen on this forum by e-gmat.

Conclusion says: X led to Y -> here an alternate cause Z can weaken the conclusion. e.g.- Z led to Y
BUT, if conclusion says: X CAN/WILL lead to Y -> here an alternate cause Z cannot weaken the conclusion. e.g.- Z can lead to Y. This is irrelevant to the argument as even though it COULD produce the same result it doesn't weaken the SPECIFIC scenario under consideration (i.e. CAN X lead to Y)

Karishma let me know if my understanding is incorrect.

Great question by the way!
My take-aways:
1. Watch out for shell-game answer choices! I marked A but got so excited to see E that I totally dumped A. Always always always evaluate between your 2 tricky remaining answers and figure out which one is MORE wrong and then eliminate this choice! Get present to the traps - for assumption: out of scope / irrelevant, MUST be true vs. COULD be true
2. Assumptions are necessary conditions not sufficient (telling myself 10 times right now!)

I get your point and here is how I will word it:
Conclusion says: X will lead to Y.
Here we don't need to assume that only X can lead to Y.

Check out this post: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/04 ... ons-again/
It will help you better incorporate this vital point about assumptions that assumptions are necessary conditions.

I am convinced with Option A as it states that there is no other debt longer than the one owed to Lee which makes it rather clear that Mayor D has to appoint Lee first.
However, option E is very close and none of the explanations have been able to clearly get it out of the way.
What makes E complicatedly close to being an assumption can be best understood if we break the sentence up:

Clause 1: The only way
Clause 2: that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee

Clause 1 Continued: is by appointing him to head the arts commission

So basically the only way to pay debt IS by appointing lee. There is no other way to pay the debt and appoint lee. Appointment of LEE is the only way.
Negate it, Appointment of Lee to head the arts commission is not the only way to pay the debt ----> implying that for instance: Mayor could rather gift him a house and pay the debt.

Thus making option E necessary for the conclusion (she will appoint lee to head the arts....) to hold.

The e-gmat.com way-

Logical structure-

Premise-
Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible Lee has wanted that job for a long time
Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election


Conclusion-She (Mayor Drabble ) will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission.

Prethinking-

Assumption-That information that must be true to arrive at the conclusion.The assumption is necessary to make the conclusion using the given premise.Assumption is unstated premise.

1. Lee still wants the job as before.
2. Drabble only owns support to Lee which will justify him getting the job. What if someone else is also in the line for the job? What if someone else equally deserving wants the job; someone whom the mayor owns debt for his support in the last election?
3.Mayor has the powers to make appointments to the arts commission.
4. Nothing else has happened since last election that would jeopardize the relationship between Drabble and Lee .

Now; I am ready to take aim at the options-

(A) Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.- Similar to prething statement 2.
(B) There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.- Similar to prethinking statement 2.
(C) Lee is the only person to whom Mayor Drabble owes a political debt who would be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.-
Not necessarily true;There might be someone else to whom Mayor may own debt and still be willing to accept the appointment.But we are only interested in someone who wants the job and not someone will accept the job.
(D) Whether Lee is qualified to head the arts commission is irrelevant to Mayor Drabble’s decision.- Not true. If he is not qualified, mayor can not appoint Lee. Should have thought during pre-thinking.

(E) The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.-The argument never makes any claim that appointment of Lee is the only way Mayor Drabble can repay her debt to Lee.

So now I am confused with option A and B; But now I can use the NEGATION technique to arrive at the right assumption.Again thanks to e-gmat.com

Statement A- Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.

Negated statement A- Mayor Drabblehas SOME political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.

Hmm. This completely shatters the conclusion.Because now it is NOT CERTAIN that she will appoint Lee. She may or she may not.But any doubt will shatter the certainity stated in the conclusion.

Conclusion-She (Mayor Drabble ) will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission.

Statement B-There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.

Negated statement B-There is SOMEONE to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.

OK . so what? If someone owns political debt to Drabble, it is not at all necessary for her to repay the debt by appointing him to the arts commission.

Conclusion remains intact.

Conclusion-She (Mayor Drabble ) will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission.


Hence, A should be the correct answer.

Kudos if someone finds the above helpful!!!

Clearly A. I chose D. However in hindsight A is clearly the answer because the argument says mayor repays as soon as possible. Now, for that, we have to establish hierarchy. Longer the debt, more eligible the contender. However, this longer will apply only in the case where both the contenders have equal chance or qualification. Like lee, if someone also covets the position or can be suitably appointed at the position, then mayor would have to see. However, here we assume hierarchy and also that mayor doesn't consider desire her selection criteria. The word "most certainly " is enough to choose A.
Because of desire n overlooking most certainly, I chose D

Posted from my mobile device

Hi VeritasKarishma

(E) The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

I negated E as-
The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by not appointing him to head the arts commission.

If I am not wrong then by doing this the conclusion breaks down. Please let me know were am I going wrong ?

Negation of "This is the only way" is "This is not the only way. There are other ways too."
The modifier needs to be negated.
Check this post for some other modifiers and their negation:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... ions-gmat/

For an argument to hold true, the assumption MADE BY THE AUTHOR AND NOT YOU must hold true, whether or not that assumption itself is valid or logical. An assumption might be logical to you, but may not be the correct answer simply because the author does not believe in it.

Assumptions made by the author, however illogical it may be, must be true for the argument to be valid. An assumption might be logical to you, but does that really mean the author also must believe on it for the argument to be valid?

Sure, the option E is also a logical assumption to us, but does that mean it is also a logical assumption for the author? Does the author really care if it is the only way to repay Drabble's political debt?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does the author originally believe? The author believes - it is only because

a) Lee supported Drabble in her last election
and
b) Drabble always repays her political debt quickly

that Drabble will make Lee Head of Arts Commission. The author does not really care if it's the only adequate way or not. Just because Lee supported Drabble, Drabble should make Lee HoAC

but

What if someone else also had supported Drabble in her last election?
What is that someone else also was owed this debt for a "LONGER" time?

The duration of debt and the debt itself are the only two parameters the author is using for coming to the conclusion.

Because Drabble also debt towards someone else and this debt is older in age than Lee's
and
Because Drabble repays the debt ASAP, it is a must for Drabble to choose that someone else first over Lee.


Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.