Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings was considered

Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings was considered one of the greatest intelligence agents of all time. It is clear that if his dismissal was justified, then Hastings was either incompetent or else disloyal. Soon after the dismissal, however, it was shown that he had never been incompetent. Thus, one is forced to conclude that Hastings must have been disloyal.

Which one of the following states an assumption upon which the argument depends?

In my opinion, "one is forced to conclude" is the conclusion and not "Hastings must have been disloyal".

(A) Hastings's dismissal was justified.
Best Answer. If it was not so, people could conclude in different ways.
(B) Hastings was a high-ranking intelligence officer.
Irrelevant statement.
(C) The dismissal of anyone who was disloyal would be justified.
Does not necessarily mean if someone's dismissal is justified, he / she would be disloyal.
(D) Anyone whose dismissal was justified was disloyal.
One can not conclude unless it is known whether the dismissal was justified.
(E) If someone was disloyal or incompetent, then his dismissal was justified
Same explanation as B, contradicts with the stimulus.

to reject e
if----then
in e its
reverse which may or may not be true.

GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo
Sir, can you please help explain...?

Explanation:
(A) Hastings's dismissal was justified.
Best choice- Negate the same- Conclusion will fall apart.

(B) Hastings was a high-ranking intelligence officer.
He was considered greatest intelligence office. This is not equivalent to high ranking officer. Also his high ranking does not create any impact on conclusion.

(C) The dismissal of anyone who was disloyal would be justified.
We are not concerned with 'Anyone' We are concerned with Hastings/Intelligence Agents. Also what happens to anyone who is disloyal is not the subject matter. We need to see if Hasting's dismissal is justified and if yes then we can conclude he was disloyal.

(D) Anyone whose dismissal was justified was disloyal.
Again not concerned with anyone. We are talking about Hasting/Intelligence Agents.

(E) If someone was disloyal or incompetent, then his dismissal was justified.[/quote]
Same explanation as C & D

Needs to be verified by experts:

Question: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus breakdown:

Premise 1: ~ False info ---> ~ reveal identity
Premise 2: Ordered by judge/editor ---> reveal identity
Conclusion: information concerns safety violations at the power plant ---> reveal identity even if info. is accurate


There seems a GAP between Prem-2 and conclusion. Premise 1 needs to be ignored, because conditionality of conclusion mentions that identity will be revealed even if the info. is true.


(A) The information that the informant provided is known to be false.
Does't connect to the conclusion, which mentions reveal ''even if the info is true.
(B) The journalist's editor will not order her to reveal the informant's identity unless the information is accurate and concerns public safety.
~ information accurate and concerns public safety ---> ~ order her to reveal.
Contra positive: order her to reveal ---> information accurate and concerns public safety
this seems to against the argument
(C) If the information concerns safety at the power plant, a judge will order the journalist to reveal her informant's identity.
This connects the Premise 2 & conclusion well:
info. safety at the power plant ---> Judge order ---> reveal info
(D) The truth of the information provided by the informant can be verified only if the informant's identity is publicly revealed.
verification of truth has nothing to do with the argument
(E) The informant understood, at the time the journalist promised him confidentiality, that she would break this promise if ordered to do so by a judge.
Just a restatement of premise 2, gives us nothing about the conclusion.


Also, if an argument says:
~ info false ---> prosecuted
can i read it as: True ---> prosecuted?
Is it advisable to reverse the logical statements this way? I read somewhere that we shouldn't.

Thanks
ASHUTOSH