hverma10 wrote:
I don't understand why C is correct.
In the original statement, it is assumed that Prof. has an impeccable behavior, thus it must be university's fault. But in C the author provides a proof that, the person getting promoted has worked less than 3 years ( a mandatory criteria for getting promoted ). So how are they same ?
the general idea of the reasoning in the statement provided in the question is that, there can be 2 causes for the outcome, since one of the reason is not possible, therefore the other cause must be the reason
outcome - getting scolder
cause 1 - revealing embarrassing info
cause 2 - gross professional negligence
in option C
outcome - getting promoted
cause 1 - worked for atleast 3 years
cause 2 - got a sponsor
Posted from my mobile device
Statistics : Posted by dishantarora16 • on 02 Apr 2024, 01:30 • Replies 6 • Views 847
![Midge Ure – A Man of Two Worlds (2026) [Official Digital Download 24bit/96kHz]](http://imghd.xyz/images/2026/05/09/zvc67e2mth34l_600.jpg)
.jpg)
