joshnsit wrote:
BTW, what would be answer as per your analysis?
When I read the question, this was my thought:
"Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for there are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know. Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
The columnist’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?"
Premises:
There are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know.
Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
Conclusion:
Almost anyone can be an expert.
How did the author jump from 'Anybody who manages to convince some people' to 'Almost anyone'. He is assuming that almost everyone can manage to convince some people. So I would look for an option that said something similar.
In structure, the argument is very similar to this:
Premises:
There are no official guidelines determining what an expert must know.
Anybody who manages to convince some people of his or her qualifications in an area—whatever those may be—is an expert.
Conclusion:
Mr A is an expert.
What is the assumption here?
The assumption is that Mr A can convince some people of his qualifications in an area.
In the original argument, instead of Mr A, the author has put 'Almost everyone'. The argument is exactly the same.