BhaveshGMAT wrote:
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.
adkikani wrote:
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.
b. Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.
c. An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator.
d. If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.
e. The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator
Source: LSAT
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.