Top Law Schools

I would like to talk about this one.

A sufficient assumption answer for this one would have been:

~understand it well enough to praise it ---> ~pass judgement

I am not understanding how it is necessary in order to pass judgement that "dismiss" is part of the either-or option with praise it.

What if the answer choice would have said:

in order to pass judgement on Stuart's art, Robbins must be able to praise it.

That is the contrapositive of the gap I established. Is it OK without the component of "dismiss?" If it is OK, then the correct answer of (A) is not really correct because it includes a superfluous option.

If what I stated is not necessary, how is it not?

I have noticed that on many conditional linking stimulus necessary assumption questions, that the correct answer is both necessary and sufficient.

When I answered this question I chose C (I'm assuming you did as well?)

Here is my reasoning for why they chose A:

Because Robbins understands the art "too well" that means she cannot dismiss it. Also, because she doesn't "understand it well enough" she cannot praise it. Therefore, she cannot either dismiss or praise the piece of art, and a failure to be able to do either means she can do neither. So, she'd have to be able to do at least one in order to pass judgment.

Right, but why is it necessary for "dismiss" to be an option?

I'm assuming it's because Robbins is disqualified from either side. Choice A says she must do one "or" the other in order to pass judgment, so I'm assuming that one of the restrictions must be lifted or could be lifted on her ability to dismiss or to understand?

timmydoeslsat wrote: What if the answer choice would have said:

in order to pass judgement on Stuart's art, Robbins must be able to praise it.

If what I stated is not necessary, how is it not?

This is a weird argument, so it's easy to lose track of what's going on. So to recap:

C: Robbins can't judge this art.
P: She can't dismiss it and she can't praise it.

The only evidence for the conlcusion is that one premise, so apparently not being able to do either of those two things means she's out of luck as far as judgement goes.

Answer choice (A) is just pointing out that the argument seems to hold that being able to either dismiss or praise is necessary for judgement.

Your proposed answer isn't really necessary, because it's not clear which is more important: the ability to praise or the ability to dismiss. It might be that the author believes either ability would be enough to allow Robbins to pass judgment. If that is the case, then she could conceivably be unable to praise yet still able to judge.