LSAT－16－3－19

19.   Thomas: The club president had no right to disallow Jeffrey’s vote. (1 )Club rules say that only members in good standing may vote. You’ve admitted that club rules also say that (2)all members whose dues are fully paid are members in good standing. And since, as the records indicate, Jeffrey has always paid his dues on time, clearly the president acted in violation of club rules.

Althea: By that reasoning my two-year-old niece can legally vote in next month’s national election since she is a citizen of this country, and only citizens can legally vote in national elections.

The reasoning in Thomas’ argument is flawed because his argument

(A) fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited and its being authorized

(B) offers evidence that casts doubt on the character of the club president and thereby ignores the question of voting eligibility

(C) wrongly assumes that if a statement is not actually denied by someone, that statement must be regarded as true

(D) does not specify the issue with respect to which the disputed vote was cast（A）

(E) overlooks the possibility that Althea is not an authority on the club’s rules

What's the reasoning line? I don't get the answer. Is mine correct?

1.vote -----members in good standing

2.fully paid due------members in good standing

Jeffrey paid his due on time

president had no tight to disallow J's vote

a classical mistake for necessary condition with sufficient condition.

As  a necessary condtion,  one without it definitely cannot do sth. but, one with it does not mean he will definately can do sth.

I understand  neg A --------neg B doesn't mean A-----B

But would you please explain more specifically that which premise goes wrong?