Self-study
Company policy: Eligible employees will be granted up to six weeks of paid parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child. ██ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████████
Summary
eligible employee → granted up to 6 weeks paid parental leave
eligible employee → apply for benefit at least three months prior to beginning of the parental leave period AND have at least one year of full-time employment with the company at the time of application
Normally, I would interpret this conditional as a one-way conditional. In other words, satisfying the two necessary conditions would not automatically make one an eligible employee.
However, notice that the stimulus tells us that we are getting the “Company policy.” This is the policy regarding parental leave – we’re not told that this is just one of the policies, and that there could be others that are relevant to parental leave that we don’t know about. Thus, the idea that there could be other necessary conditions that are required in order to be eligible, but were simply left out of the policy we’re given, is not a reasonable interpretation. That’s why in this context, we can interpret the second sentence as a biconditional. The two conditions that are required in order to be eligible are also, if both are met, sufficient to be eligible:
apply for benefit at least three months prior to beginning of the parental leave period AND have at least one year of full-time employment with the company at the time of application → eligible
(Please note that reading the second sentence biconditionally because we’re told the stimulus set out a “Company policy” is a highly unusual feature of this question. Do not take this to mean that the statement “To be X, you must be Y” naturally sets forth a biconditional. It doesn’t.)
Find or Complete the Application
An argument that conforms to these policies can take many forms. It could give us premises that establish someone’s an eligible employee, and then conclude that they should get up to 6 weeks of paid parental leave, or that the person satisfied the two necessary (and sufficient) conditions for being eligible.
Or it could tell us that someone satisfied the two sufficient (and necessary) conditions for being eligible, and conclude that they can get up to 6 weeks of parental leave (because they are eligible).
We could also get an argument that says someone has not satisfied at least one of the necessary (and sufficient) conditions for being eligible, and therefore they are not eligible.
21.
Which one of the following █████████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████
a
Mac is a █████████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███████ █ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████
He must have worked full-time for at least one year at the time of application for parental leave. But he’s only been with the company for exactly one year. And he applied three months ago…that means he was only a full-time employee for 9 months at the time of application. So, we can’t conclude that Mac should get leave.
b
Sara has worked █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ████ █ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███ ████ █████
This tells us that Sara has worked full-time for the company for at least one year at the time of application, and she applied for parental leave at least 3 months before the leave would start. So, she’s eligible. How can this argument conclude that she shouldn’t be granted the leave, then? Because she took a leave of absence? There’s no rule saying that you can’t take parental leave if you took a leave of absence. So (B) doesn’t conform to the company policies in the stimulus.
c
Hal, a second-year, █████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ██████
Hal has worked full-time for at least one year at the time of his application, and applied at least three months before the leave would start. So he satisfies the two sufficient (and necessary) conditions for being eligible. That means we don’t have a basis to conclude that he shouldn’t be granted the leave, as long as the leave is up to 6 weeks long. Hal’s asking for only two weeks – but that’s still under the 6-week maximum. There’s no basis to say that Hal shouldn’t be granted the leave.
d
Dudley has worked █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ████
One of the necessary conditions for being an eligible employee is working full-time for at least one year. Dudley worked part-time, and we’re not told he worked full-time. So, we don’t know that he satisfied one of the necessary conditions for being eligible. Since we don’t know that he’s eligible, we can’t conclude that he should be granted leave.
e
Maria has worked █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██████
Maria worked full-time for at least one year at the time of her application, and applied for leave at least three months before it would start. So, she satisfied the sufficient (and necessary conditions) for being eligible. That means she should be granted the leave. This argument conforms to the company policy.