The bitterly-fought count and recount went on for weeks, with battles back and forth over disputed or missing ballots. Eventually, Frank Allen is certified as the winner over Cole Norman by a miniscule margin of 312 votes out of millions of votes cast. Two years later, evidence surfaces that 341 people who had been convicted of a felony voted in this election. Under the law in this state, people who have been convicted of a felony lose their right to vote. Supporters of Norman now argue that Norman should have been the winner instead of Allen!

Do the Norman supporters have a point? Which of the following assumptions would have to be necessarily true for their argument that Norman should have won to stand up?

As you work through determining whether an assumption is necessary, take it out and see what happens. A good analogy is a part in your car engine if you're not sure if a part is necessary for your car to function, see what happens if you remove it. If the car still functions, then the part wasn't necessary. Similarly, if statement X is an assumption, if X isn't true, the whole argument will fall apart.

Which of the following assumptions are necessarily made to support the argument that Norman should have been the winner instead of Allen?

Statement 1:
All 341 voters voted for Allen.

Statement 2:
The 341 voters did not have their voting rights restored at the time of the election.

Statement 3:
Convicted felons who voted in the election were more likely to support Allen than Norman.

Statement 4:
People who have been convicted of a felony should lose their right to vote.