Passage Summary: The president says she wasn't told about changes, but the contract says she or a lawyer must be told first; since she and a specific person named Yeung weren't told, the author claims the contract was broken.

Conclusion: The contract was violated, provided the statements from the president and Grimes are accurate.

Reasoning: The contract requires the president or a company lawyer to be notified of changes, but changes were made before the president or Yeung were informed.

Analysis: There is a clear gap between the evidence and the conclusion: we know the president and Yeung weren't told, but the contract could still be satisfied if *any* lawyer in the department was told. To make the conclusion 'The contract was violated' absolutely certain, we must assume that Yeung is the only lawyer who could have been told, or that no other lawyer was told. Look for an answer that bridges the gap between Yeung specifically and the entire legal department's knowledge.