An oligarchy is a government run by a small, conservative faction. Oft

I was stuck between B and E - ultimately I picked E because B sounded too extreme.

I am interested to know if anyone else also had any other reasons why B is incorrect.

Please let me know, thank you!

I think one can easily boil it down to B or E.
Lets try to negate B.

The Royal Family in SA has MADE a risky investment. This does not effect the argument or its conclusion. Its as if we are just negating the conclusion of the argument "Therefore, risky investments are never made by oligarchies". Furthermore, this choice is just talking about one investment which is made by royal family which is not risky.

Lets try to negate E

Only Individuals do not make risky investments. This implies, that the people in Oligarchy are individuals as argument conclusion states risky investments are never made by Oligarchies.
However, Oligarchies are royal families and not individuals. so Argument dies.
Therefor E is the right answer.


An oligarchy is a government run by a small, conservative faction. Often, oligarchies consist of families such as the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia. Like the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, no one person in an oligarchy has the power to make a particular investment. Therefore, risky investments are never made by oligarchies.

The conclusion of the argument is valid if which one of the following is assumed?

A) Not all oligarchies are fun by families.
B) The Royal Family in Saudi Arabia has never made a risky investment.
C) Conservative governments rarely make risky investments.
D) Only liberal governments make risky investments.
E) Only individuals make risky investments.

It can't be (b) because you can't assume that the royal family of saudi arabia was always an oligarchy. Maybe at some time in the past, the royal family was controlled by an individual member, who did make risky investment decisions.