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.
A. This gives sufficient conditions for board eligibility. Its contrapositive—if not eligible for the board, then either no master’s or a felony conviction—doesn’t help. We already know Murray has a felony conviction, so this adds nothing new.
B. Correct. This directly connects board eligibility to eligibility for Executive Administrator. Since Murray isn’t eligible for the board, this rule means he’s also ineligible for Executive Administrator.
C. This tells us that board eligibility isn’t required to be Executive Administrator, but that doesn’t rule Murray out. It’s like saying, “Harvard doesn’t require a perfect GPA—so someone with a perfect GPA won’t get in.” It misses the point.
D. This is an invalid negation of the argument’s conclusion. It suggests that the felony might not be the reason Murray can’t be appointed, but that doesn’t weaken the argument—it just doesn’t address it.
E. This doesn’t establish that a felony conviction disqualifies someone from becoming Executive Administrator. It offers no definitive link between the conviction and ineligibility.
