Company policy: orders exceeding 1 million yuan must be approved by the general manager. Xiao Zhao's order is 800,000 yuan, and he signed the contract directly without seeking the general manager's approval, reasoning: 'My order doesn't exceed 1 million, so it doesn't need the general manager's approval.' Which evaluation is the most accurate?

Answer: C

• AThe reasoning is valid. As long as the order doesn't exceed 1 million, this approval rule doesn't apply to it.✗ Wrong. This is a fallacy of denying the antecedent: treating 'exceeds 1 million → requires approval' as 'doesn't exceed → exempt from approval.' The rule only guarantees one-way implication; it doesn't say that not exceeding 1 million is automatically exempt.
• BThe reasoning is valid. The company's approval threshold is the amount; 800,000 hasn't reached it, so this complies with the policy.✗ Wrong. Same misunderstanding as denying the antecedent: replacing the rule's actual text with an imagined convention that 'approval depends only on amount.' The rule doesn't exclude other circumstances that might trigger approval.
• CThe reasoning is invalid. The rule only guarantees 'exceeds 1 million must be approved', but doesn't say 'doesn't exceed then exempt.' High-risk situations and other cases might also trigger approval.✓ Correct. The rule is a conditional of sufficiency; valid inferences are only affirming the antecedent or denying the consequent. Inferring 'no approval needed' from 'doesn't exceed 1 million' is a fallacy of denying the antecedent; high-risk clients or special payment terms might also require general manager approval.
• DThe reasoning is invalid. Xiao Zhao should first ask the general manager before signing the contract; no matter how small the amount, the leader should be informed.✗ Wrong. This confuses 'whether the reasoning is valid' with 'whether the behavior is appropriate.' Even if 'should ask for small amounts' is true, it doesn't point out the specific error in his reasoning.