@hajmcl95 The principle doesn't actually tell us anything about what should be done if there are fully qualified candidates that currently work for the company. When we have a conditional of the form:

A->B

We can't use the conditional to draw any conclusions about what is true when /A (when some of the fully qualified candidates works for Arvue). We can only draw conclusions from A->B when A holds (when none of the fully qualified candidates works for Arvue) or when /B holds.

@GDatria715 A property can be ascribed only to individuals even if that property is had universally by those individuals.

Imagine a messy pile of cubes. Every object in the pile is a cube. So the property is universally held by objects in the pile.

But 'being a cube' is an individual property of each cube. For example, the pile is not itself a cube even if every object in the pile is a cube. Or let's say you take Cube A and Cube B from the pile. Cube A is a cube and Cube B is a cube, but the pair A+B is definitely not a cube.

The dismissal of E is confusing to me in J.Y.'s explanation. He seems to suggest it's because no one breaks out into song in China Men, but the question is not about China Men, it is about talk-story, which is characterized as a genre of "song and spoken narrative." The absence of song in China Men doesn't seem to bear on this question.

I got this wrong, but it strikes me that A is better just because the author doesn't actually emphasize narrative or song in their discussion of talk-story in the second paragraph (and perhaps the tone is not positive enough to qualify as open admiration in that paragraph).

Am I missing something about J.Y.'s explanation?