It was misleading for James to tell the Core Curriculum Committee

Question

It was misleading for James to tell the Core Curriculum Committee that the chair of the Anthropology Department had endorsed his proposal. The chair of the Anthropology Department had told James that his proposal had her endorsement, but only if the draft proposal she saw included all the recommendations James would ultimately make to the Core Curriculum Committee.

The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) If the chair of the Anthropology Department did not endorse James’s proposed recommendations, the Core Curriculum Committee would be unlikely to implement them.

(B) The chair of the Anthropology Department would have been opposed to any recommendations James proposed to the Core Curriculum Committee other than those she had seen.

(C) James thought that the Core Curriculum Committee would implement the proposed recommendations only if they believed that the recommendations had been endorsed by the chair of the Anthropology Department.

(D) James thought that the chair of the Anthropology Department would have endorsed all of the recommendations that he proposed to the Core Curriculum Committee.

(E) The draft proposal that the chair of the Anthropology Department had seen did not include all of the recommendations in James’s proposal to the Core Curriculum Committee.

blowice27 · Answer

Clear cut E. 
Chair wanted all recommendations to be present. Argument thinks it is misleading to say that james has the endorsement. If james has all the recommendations in the argument, that it is not misleading, hence the assumption

Posted from my mobile device

Strategix · Answer

Not sure if it's just me, but how is option E an assumption? It's pretty clear from the argument that the chair of the Anthropology Department did not see all the included recommendations. Moreover, if option E is negated it challenges the premise of the argument IMO.

Negate option E: The draft proposal that the chair of the Anthropology Department had seen   included   all of the recommendations in James’s proposal to the Core Curriculum Committee.

Bunuel   KarishmaB   MartyMurray   ChiranjeevSingh   AnishPassi

vineet6316 · Answer

Negation of choice ‘E’ :  The draft proposal that the chair had seen  DID  include all of the recommendations in James's proposal to the Core Curriculum Committee.

If the negated statement is true, then the final proposal submitted to the Committee was   exactly the same   as the proposal the chair had endorsed.

Therefore, James's statement that the chair had endorsed his proposal was   TRUE and NOT misleading  .

Since negating choice (E) completely destroys the argument's conclusion (that the action was misleading),  (E) is the necessary assumption.

Your comment that negating choice (E) "challenges the premise” is incorrect.

Premise 1:   James told the Committee the chair endorsed his proposal. 
  Premise 2:   The chair only promised endorsement  if  the draft matched the final proposal. (a conditional statement)

Negating (E)  (i.e., assuming the draft  DID  match the final) only proves that James's statement in Premise 1 was  justified . It does not make Premise 1 itself false. The argument's logic is what breaks down, not the factual premises.
 
Remember by their inherent nature  ‘premises’ can never be challenged . They are always ‘true’. If you are ever getting this thought, reconsider the way you are looking at the problem.

egmat · Answer

Strategix  Your intuition that option E seems "clear from the argument" is understandable - it  feels  like it should be there. But this is exactly what makes it a perfect assumption: it's something we naturally fill in mentally but isn't actually stated.

Let's examine what the argument  actually states  vs. what it  assumes :

What's Stated: 
- James told the Committee the chair endorsed his proposal
- The chair gave  conditional  endorsement: "only if the draft includes  all  recommendations"
- The conclusion: James was misleading

What's NOT Stated: 
The argument never says James added or changed recommendations after the chair's review. This gap is precisely what option E fills.

Process Diagnosis 
You're confusing "what must be true for the conclusion to work" with "what's explicitly stated." The argument gives us:
 	ext{Premise} + 	ext{Assumption} = 	ext{Conclusion}

Without the assumption (E), we can't reach the conclusion.

The Negation Test - Corrected 
You negated E correctly! But watch what happens:

If "the draft DID include all recommendations," then:
→ Chair saw everything James proposed
→ Her conditional endorsement applies (condition met!)
→ James was  truthful , not misleading
→ This  destroys the conclusion , not the premise

The premise (chair's conditional statement) remains intact. It's the conclusion that falls apart - exactly what we want in an assumption question.

Strategic Framework - Assumption Recognition Pattern: 
When an assumption feels "obvious," that's your signal! Ask yourself:
 
 Is this fact explicitly stated anywhere? (Check line by line) 
 Does the conclusion require this to be true? 
 Does negating it kill the conclusion (not the premises)?

If you answer No-Yes-Yes, you've found your assumption.

It was misleading for James to tell the Core Curriculum Committee

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

It was misleading for James to tell the Core Curriculum Committee

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards