If the proposed tax reduction package is adopted this year, the library will be forced to discontinue its daily story hours for children. But if the daily story hours are discontinued, many parents will be greatly inconvenienced. So the proposed tax reduction package will not be adopted this year.
Conclusion: Proposed tax reduction will not be adopted this year
Premise:
1. The proposed tax reduction package will force library to discontinue its daily story hours for children.
2. Discontinue of daily story hours will cause inconvenience to the parents.
Assumption:
Should connect the premises and conclusion (We see there is a gap in the argument between inconvenience to parents and the package not being adopted). There must be some assumption that author makes to connect the parents inconvenience and the tax package to be adopted.
Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the argument’s conclusion to be properly drawn?
(A) Any tax reduction package that will not force the library to discontinue daily story hours will be adopted this year.
- We are looking for statement that connects parents inconvenience to adoption of tax reduction package. This statement provides no connection. Wrong.
OR
- Negation should break the argument -
Negation: Some tax reduction package that will not force the library to discontinue daily story hours will be adopted this year. - Has no affect on the argument, as if the tax argument forces library to discontinue then it will still not be adopted.
(B) Every tax reduction package that would force the library to discontinue daily story hours would greatly inconvenience parents.
- We are looking for statement that connects parents inconvenience to adoption of tax reduction package. This statement provides no connection. Wrong
OR
- Negation should break the argument -
Negation: Atleast few tax reduction package that would force the library to discontinue daily story hours would greatly inconvenience parents - Okay. Let it cause inconvenience, but our conclusion still holds true, the tax package will still not be adopted
(C) No tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents would fail to force the library to discontinue daily story hours.
- Negation should break the argument - Atleast some tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents would fail to force the library to discontinue daily story hours. - Okay for some of them the tax package will not be able to close but what about adoption of package? Nothing. Secondly, our argument still stands strong, even if it fails to force some library to discontinue, where it is able to "force" (check question stem) - the tax will not be adopted.
(D) No tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year.
- Negation: Atleast some reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year. This breaks the argument. Correct.
(E) Any tax reduction package that will not greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year.
Wrong
- Negation: Atleast few tax reduction package that will not greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year. - Our argument still stands strong. If it causes inconvenience it will not be adopted