PT43.S3.Q24

BigJay20

I get why B is correct but it's impossible to eliminate D. What am I missing here?

Let’s imagine we have 4 graduates, Eva, John, Jerome, and Henry- Our only graduates across the country.

Premise 1: While only Eva and John consider work environment an important factor in choosing a job, Eva, John, Jerome AND Henry consider salary an important factor.

Premise 2: While Chad and Michael, consider stress and important factor due to their veteran status, Eva, John, Jerome AND Henry consider vacation policy an important factor.

Per this outline and sticking to D, Eva, John, Jerome and Henry (all the people who consider vacation and important factor), also consider salary. Per our first stimulus, all 4 consider salary as well.

I’m really starting to feel stupid.

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-43-section-3-question-24/

hopefulling

• For D, the sufficient is the same: translating into,
[if I'm a] (recent university grad) --> [then I] (consider salary important)
[if I'm a] (recent university grad) --> [then I] (consider vacation policy important)

• This is the valid argument form: (no.6?)
A --> B
A --> C
therefore: B --some-- C (some B are C OR also some C are B, since some statements are bi-directional / can be read from either direction) .

• And then D states it as B --> C (ALL B are C). It's not a statement that MUST be true as its conclusion is too strong with what is given in the stimulus. (There may be some people who are NOT recent university grads who also consider vacation/salary important but don't also consider the other important: (my cat) is (red) & (my cat) is (hungry): but not ALL things that are red are hungry; however, we could say that SOME things that are red are hungry - because my cat satisfies that instance!!). If 'D' were corrected to use SOME instead of ALL, then it would be correct as a Must Be True answer. But, because it uses ALL instead of SOME, it's incorrect.

Choice B makes the nicest chain of information. You can link together a some statement with an all statement and say that A --some-- B --> C as A --some-- C. (valid argument form no.7)

Hope this helps clarify and doesn't instead just come off as "crazy nonsense"!!
In a weird way, writing this out helped me to specifically see the invalid argument form, and hopefully I'll not make the same mistake on future questions!! I think I was just lucky on this PT with my answer choice, when I chose B.

alecroye

D says all people. meaning every person in the world. The stimulus only talks about graduate students.

BigJay20

@hopefulling

Could you please use my example in explaining, this just confused me more.

LOWERCASE EVERYTHING

@BigJay20 your example presents just 1 instance that works, but the problem is that it doesn't work in all cases. using your example, let's say that we have mark zuckerberg (who is not a recent university graduate) and he considers vacation policy important. by the way, this is fine, because the stimulus says that recent graduate --> vacation important; not the other way around.
does that mean zuckerberg also considers salary important? no. it's totally okay that zuckerberg considers vacation policy important but does not consider salary important.

so basically, you are committing the necessary/sufficient mix-up flaw: you are treating a necessary condition for being recent graduates (considering vacation important) as if it were a sufficient condition. there is an instance where this is okay (like your case), but you're overlooking the possibility that people other than the recent graduates also consider vacation important (and those people may not consider salary important) – like mark zuckerberg.

hope this helps!

LOWERCASE EVERYTHING

@BigJay20 if answer choice d instead said: "recent graduates who consider vacation an important factor also consider salary an important factor," it would've been correct. (i think this was your example.)

compare this with how answer choice d is written: "all people who consider vacation an important factor also consider salary an important factor."

maybe this might help you see the difference!