Bunuel
Although the charter of Westside School states that the student body must include some students with special educational needs, no students with learning disabilities have yet enrolled in the school. Therefore, the school is currently in violation of its charter.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Rephrasing this:
Student body should be composed of some special needs students, and since no new ones are joining, the school will be in violation of the charter.
Prethink:
We need to rule out the possibility of the school already having special needs students.
(A) All students with learning disabilities have special educational needs.Tempting because there IS a leap in the argument.. But even if this were needed, what if the student body already consisted of special needs students? We need to rule out that possibility
(B) The school currently has no students with learning disabilities.Aligns with what we're looking for, although I'll admit that equating Special Needs & Learning Disabilities is making me uneasy.
If we take the opposite of this statement then the argument collapses, which is what we expect with assumption questions.
(C) The school should enroll students with special educational needs.What they should/shouldn't do is irrelevant
(D) The only students with special educational needs are students with learning disabilities.Whether there is only one kind of student that meets the criteria of "Special Needs" is irrelevant
(E) The school’s charter cannot be modified in order to avoid its being violated.We're interested in completing the argument, not resolving the issue.. This is irrelevant