@Kevin_Lin In general, if an answer choice provides a direct contradiction to the stimulus, should we ALWAYS choose to believe the stimulus over the answer choice (even if the question stem says "if true"). This happened in Q2, answer A.
Can you elaborate on number Four Answer A? I do not understand how having more people in the workplace would not influence how likely it is for being hired. The more bodies in the workforce, the lower your chances are for being hired, regardless of skill/talent.
@Tannercho06897 Under that logic, wouldn't A still be correct because it's not helping to explain why the slackers have a higher chance of finding a job?
@Tannercho06897 I would say A doesn't help because regardless of the number of people in either group, the percentages still stay the same. Remember, we have to take the premises to be absolutely true. So if there were 1,000 slackers looking for jobs, versus only 50 conscientious people looking for jobs, it still doesn't change the fact that a higher percentage of the slackers are more likely to find jobs than conscientious people in this scenario. Which in that case, we're still left wondering why these percentages differ, meaning that A does not help to explain the phenomenon.
Also, like @Kevin_Lin said, your explanation actually runs counter to what the premises say: "The more bodies in the workforce, the lower your chances of being hired are." This is anti-supported by the stimulus, which literally says that the slackers had a higher chance of being hired.
For question 4, I rationalized A saying that if there are more people who shirk their workplace responsibilities looking for jobs than those who are conscientious (let's say 2:1 ratio), then it makes sense that they would be more likely to find a job. They are more plentiful in the job market. Help me understand please
@AubreeGarcia I thought this one was weird too. When I got laid off the first people who got new jobs were those worse employees who had already been looking and talking to other firms before the news dropped.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
11 comments
@Kevin_Lin In general, if an answer choice provides a direct contradiction to the stimulus, should we ALWAYS choose to believe the stimulus over the answer choice (even if the question stem says "if true"). This happened in Q2, answer A.
Can you elaborate on number Four Answer A? I do not understand how having more people in the workplace would not influence how likely it is for being hired. The more bodies in the workforce, the lower your chances are for being hired, regardless of skill/talent.
@Tannercho06897 Under that logic, wouldn't A still be correct because it's not helping to explain why the slackers have a higher chance of finding a job?
@Kevin_Lin So are we talking about individual slackers and conscientious people, not as a group?
@Tannercho06897 I would say A doesn't help because regardless of the number of people in either group, the percentages still stay the same. Remember, we have to take the premises to be absolutely true. So if there were 1,000 slackers looking for jobs, versus only 50 conscientious people looking for jobs, it still doesn't change the fact that a higher percentage of the slackers are more likely to find jobs than conscientious people in this scenario. Which in that case, we're still left wondering why these percentages differ, meaning that A does not help to explain the phenomenon.
Also, like @Kevin_Lin said, your explanation actually runs counter to what the premises say: "The more bodies in the workforce, the lower your chances of being hired are." This is anti-supported by the stimulus, which literally says that the slackers had a higher chance of being hired.
I LOVE THESSE VIDEOS AGHH!!!! KEVIN YOU ARE A HOMIE
For question 4, I rationalized A saying that if there are more people who shirk their workplace responsibilities looking for jobs than those who are conscientious (let's say 2:1 ratio), then it makes sense that they would be more likely to find a job. They are more plentiful in the job market. Help me understand please
@AubreeGarcia But how would each individual person's chances of being hired be higher merely because more of that kind of person is looking for a job?
Slackers on average have a 60% chance of getting hired
Conscientious people on average have have a 40% chance of getting hired
This is a claim about individuals within each group. A given slacker, on average, is more likely to be hired than a conscientious person.
I think you're interpreting the situation as "why are more slackers hired?" That could be explained by more slackers looking for jobs.
But the question is actually "why are (individual) slackers more likely to find a job"?
@Kevin_Lin thank you!
@AubreeGarcia I thought this one was weird too. When I got laid off the first people who got new jobs were those worse employees who had already been looking and talking to other firms before the news dropped.
first