broall wrote:
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?
(A) Hastings's dismissal was justified.
(B) Hastings was a high-ranking intelligence officer.
(C) The dismissal of anyone who was disloyal would be justified.
(D) Anyone whose dismissal was justified was disloyal.
(E) If someone was disloyal or incompetent, then his dismissal was justified.
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