An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive

Hi GMATNinja Experts
Please help me by validating my reasoning:
Conclusion:Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator
Premise: he has a felony conviction and no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board

I am supposed to find correct assumption for this Q type

A and C -> Goes against the premise, rejected

E - > irrelevant

I am confused between B and D.
D -> If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. This seems to be a MAY BE TRUE and not MUST BE TRUE statement. My reasoning is that if we fails later in technical / HR rounds he may still be rejected though he may aptly qualified.

But why is (B) correct?

Hi abhimahna

How did you link position of Executive Administrator to be on same level as position in executive board?

Hi adkikani ,

That is what author is assuming while concluding anything for Mr Murray.

Notice that initially author is talking about position in executive board and then concluded about Mr Murray's position of Executive Administrator. Otherwise, how dare he talk about one thing and concluded about another.

Hence, he can do so if he assume what I mentioned.

Does that makes sense?

An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
a. Anyone with a master's degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board. -We know necessary conditions, not all the conditions.
b. Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. -Correct
c. An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator. -Wrong
d. If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. -Can't say
e. The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator -Doesn't matter. He had a felony charge and that is what matters.

An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.

- There are 2 necessary conditions for appointment to executive board -
- undergrad degree
- Absence of felony conviction

--> Murray fulfills the first of the two necessary conditions for appointment to Exec board , but fails in second. Therefore , he won't be accepted for Exec admin
Pre-thinking -- To be eligible to be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator , one should be eligible for appointment to the executive board

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

a. Anyone with a master's degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board.--Incorrect
b. Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. -- Correct
c. An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator. -- Incorrect
d. If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. -- Incorrect -- confuses necessary condition and sufficient condition
e. The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator -- Irrelevant

Answer B

An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Analysis:
UG --eligible--> executive-board
not felony--eligible--> board
UG & non-felony --eligible--> executive-board
Murray: UG & felony --not eligible-> Executive Administrator: what is "Executive Administrator"? is it something related to executive-board/board? if not we can't conclude that he is not eligible, if Executive Administrator is similar to Executive Administrator, then can say that he is not eligible.
So the assumption is that "Executive Administrator is similar to Executive Administrator"

a. Anyone with a master's degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board. --> this is already given in the argument (PG should have an UG degree!)

b. Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. --> correct: matches w/ analysis: Executive Administrator is similar to Executive Administrator

c. An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator. --> this is not the assumption: no, US degree is necessary for EA if EA is similar to EB

d. If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. --> we can't say that, being not felony & UG is necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions

e. The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator --> what kind of felony charge don't matter

Here, the word 'Executive Administrator' is a newly introduced word in the conclusion. So our assumption must contain a link between the rest of the premise and 'Executive Administrator' .
Using prethinking, we can reach the assumption 'One can be accepted for the position of Executive Adminstrator only by getting through the Executive Board. Hence,IMO B.

I am having trouble with eliminating A. Does not having Master's Degree means he already has undergrad ?

That's why the option A is the first choice because it is generally known that someone with a masters degree must be having a undergraduate degree. This option utilizes this fact against test taker(as i see it) who fell for the trap. In the LSAT/GMAT world, this problem can be countered by evaluating the necessary vs sufficient test. So, is it necessary that undergrad degree is a must for someone with a masters degree? No! Plus, for a better understanding, wouldn't be it be an assumption to make that undergrad is required.


Again, an imperative aspect in this passage is why the 'appointment to the executive board' was changed to 'acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator'. There must be some relation between executive board and an executive administrator. Right!!!
Hence, this is what we are looking for and must stick to.

HTH.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.