Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: You need a degree and a clean record to be on the board; Murray has the degree but a criminal record, so the author says he can't be the Executive Administrator.

Conclusion: Murray is ineligible for the position of Executive Administrator.

Reasoning: Murray has a felony conviction, and the rules state that felons cannot be appointed to the executive board.

Analysis: There is a clear 'Gap' here between being on the 'executive board' and being the 'Executive Administrator.' The premises give us rules for the board, but the conclusion is about a specific job title. To guarantee the conclusion is true, we must assume that the Executive Administrator position is a seat on the executive board. Look for an answer that explicitly connects that specific job to the board's membership requirements.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

6.

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Correct Answer
B
It supplies the missing bridge: Only those eligible for the executive board can be accepted for Executive Administrator (Accepted EA → board-eligible). Since a felony makes one not board-eligible, the contrapositive ensures Murray cannot be accepted.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep