Passage Summary: There are only two specific situations where an officer has to show their investments. Since Cecile doesn't fit either of those two descriptions, the argument says she's off the hook.

Conclusion: Cecile does not need to reveal her investments publicly right now.

Reasoning: The association rules only mandate disclosure if an officer handles funds or is on a petrochemical board, and Cecile does neither.

Analysis: This argument treats two specific conditions as if they are the only possible reasons for disclosure. The 'gap' is that while the association requires disclosure in those two cases, there might be other rules or circumstances not mentioned that still require Cecile to go public. To make the conclusion follow logically, we need an assumption that these are the only two conditions under which disclosure is required. Look for an answer that establishes these two scenarios as an exhaustive list.