The country has recently been shaken by the increase in incidents of corruption amongst the political class and the bureaucracy. The solution clearly is to appoint an independent investigating body headed by a person of repute who can investigate such cases of corruption and punish those found guilty.
The conclusion above would be more reasonably drawn if which of the following were inserted into the argument as an additional premise?
(A) The appointment of the independent body is the only way
to combat corruptionWrong.
Out of scope & too extreme.
(B) The independent agency will itself not fall prey to corruption Correct.
Negation: if independent agency will fall to corruption ==> The solution does not help.
(C) Corruption is not present outside
the political class and the bureaucracy Wrong.
Out of scope.
(D) The punishment meted out by the investigating agency will not act as deterrent
for people/agencies susceptible to corruption Wrong.
Opposite answer. punishment does not act as deterrent ==> The solution does not help.
(E) If not controlled immediately,
the problem of corruption can spiral out of controlWrong.
Out of scope. The conclusion doesn't mention about the timing.
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.
"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."
Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.