If Agnes’s research proposal is approved, the fourthfloor lab must be

Let us break down the argument.

Conclusion: So since the director will support both proposals, the fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out. The conclusion takes for granted that the director will support both the proposals.

Premises:
• There are two proposals under consideration: Agnes’ and Immanuel’s.
• The fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out if Agnes’ proposal is approved.
• The second-floor lab will suffice for Immanuel’s work since he needs lesser space.
• The director’s approval is necessary for a proposal to be approved.

The question requires us to look for a flaw in the argument. A flaw could be in the form of a missing link or an invalid assumption as the basis of the conclusion.

The conclusion predicts that the director will support both the proposals and so, the fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out. The size of the labs has no direct connection to the conclusion. It is based on the director’s approval. So, Option A is irrelevant.

The conclusion is based on the prediction that the director will support both proposals and so, the fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out. Whether the director does so enthusiastically or not is also irrelevant. So, Option C is also incorrect.

Option D goes on a tangent by discussing whether Immanuel will want to move to a bigger lab or not. Immanuel’s wishes do not affect the director’s decision. So, Option D is incorrect.

Option E also discusses a point that is tangential to the conclusion. It focuses on whether the any other lab would be adequate for Agnes’ research. Since this option does not relate to the conclusion, which is based on the director’s approval, this option is also incorrect.

Option B is the only one that focuses on the conclusion. The conclusion states that the fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out because the director will approve both proposals.
The passage states that only those proposals that the director supports will be approved and predicts that the director will support both proposals. This prediction is made on the invalid assumption that the director’s support is the only prerequisite for a proposal to be approved and that it will not be rejected once the director has approved it.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Hi,

I have posted an explanation of the argument above but I would also like to address your question about Option E specifically.

You have correctly identified the conclusion, which is that the fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out. However, the question asks us to identify a flaw in the argument. This means the flaw need not be in the conclusion specifically but could also be in the basis for the conclusion.

In this case, it is in the direct reason given for the conclusion: that the director will support both the proposals. It is on this basis of this prediction that the conclusion is drawn. It becomes a prediction because of the word 'will'. Please note that the passage also states that only those proposals that the director supports will be approved.

So, the conclusion that the fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out has nothing to do with whether the lab is adequate for Agnes' research, or the size of the labs etc. but is rather based on the assumption that the director will approve of both the proposals and that once he/she approves it, nothing else will cause either of the proposals to be rejected. .

I hope this helps.

Jayanthi Kumar.

If Agnes’s research proposal is approved, the fourthfloor lab must be cleaned out for her use. Immanuel’s proposal, on the other hand, requires less space. So if his proposal is approved, he will continue to work in the second-floor lab. Only those proposals the director supports will be approved. So since the director will support both proposals, the fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out.

The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument

(A) presumes, without providing justification, that the fourth-floor lab is bigger than the secondfloor lab - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(B) fails to consider the possibility that a proposal will be rejected even with the director’s support - CORRECT. What if director's support is not enough? What if other parameters are also needed? There are other questions that raise doubts if it's true that his/her support is enough.
(C) presumes, without providing justification, that the director will support both proposals with equal enthusiasm - WRONG. "equal" modifies the situation which is irrelevant.
(D) fails to consider the possibility that Immanuel will want to move to a bigger lab once his proposal is approved - WRONG. Irrelevant to scope of the passage.
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that no lab other than the fourth-floor lab would be adequate for Agnes’s research - WRONG. Beyond scope.

Answer B.

­

Context:
If Agnes’s research proposal is approved, the fourth floor lab must be cleaned out for her use.
If Immanuel’s proposal is approved, he will continue to work in the second-floor lab.

Premises:
Only those proposals the director supports will be approved.
The director will support both proposals.

Conclusion:
The fourth-floor lab must be cleaned out.

The premises tell us that for approval, it is necessary that the director support the proposal. They also tell us that the director will support both proposals.
But is the director’s support sufficient for approval? Are there no other parameters? We cannot conclude that Agnes’s proposal will be approved only because the director will support. The argument takes a necessary condition to be sufficient.

Let’s look at the options now.

(A) Presumes, without providing justification, that the fourth-floor lab is bigger than the second floor lab
No such justification is required for our conclusion.

(B) Fails to consider the possibility that a proposal will be rejected even with the director’s support
Correct. It fails to consider that there could be other parameters which need to be met too for approval.

(C) Presumes, without providing justification, that the director will support both proposals with equal enthusiasm
The argument does not assume that both will be supported equally. The argument doesn’t even say that there is any competition between the proposals. Both could be approved or neither could be approved.

(D) Fails to consider the possibility that Immanuel will want to move to a bigger lab once his proposal is approved
The argument tells us that if Immanuel’s proposal is approved, he will continue working in the same lab. It is a premise that we should take to be true.

(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that no lab other than the fourth-floor lab would be adequate for Agnes’s research
The argument tells us that if Agnes’s proposal is approved, she will need the fourth floor lab. We need to take it to be true.

Answer (B)

Discussion on Flaw in Reasoning: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8