Passage Summary: Two suspects were at the office. If Herbert did it, he'd leave prints or footprints. If Samantha did it, she'd leave nothing. The police found prints that weren't Herbert's, so the argument says it must be Samantha.

Conclusion: Samantha is definitely the individual responsible for the murder of Jansen.

Reasoning: Both Samantha and Herbert were at the scene; Herbert is excluded because the fingerprints found weren't his; and while the evidence (prints found) contradicts the rule that Samantha would leave nothing, the argument concludes she is the killer anyway.

Analysis: The logic here is actually quite broken, which is why we need a 'Sufficient Assumption' to fix it. The premises say if Samantha were the killer, she would have left *no* prints, yet the police *found* prints. This actually suggests Samantha is *not* the killer according to the rules. To make the conclusion follow, we need an assumption that accounts for those mystery prints (perhaps they were left by someone else entirely) and confirms that Samantha and Herbert were the only two people who could have possibly done it. Look for an answer that bridges the gap between the evidence found and Samantha's guilt.