25-2-2: Josh Applying for Job - PFR

MatthewJA

Hey All,

Just working through some problem sets', and this particular question stumped me big time! Managed to successfully answer the other 4, but, this one gave me some trouble.

I parsed out a (P) + (C):
(P): Nobody wants the job more than Josh (but he doesn't want it)
(C): There will be no applicants (no matter how high salary)

From here, I couldn't really push out a flaw. Furthermore, I didn't see any opportunity to translate into lawgic/logic, to help clarify.
Knowing what the correct AC is and comparing it to the stimulus, it is definitely the most comparable. However, I was looking for a more detailed explanation of how to solve this question if possible.

Help? Thank you!

c.janson35

The flaw lies in assuming that there will be no applicants for the job just because Josh wants it the most and is still not applying. The job could be very attractive to a lot of people, Josh in particular because he may have been working his whole life for the job, but he can't apply for family reasons right now. But what about all of the other people who want the job? Just because they don't want it more than josh does not mean that they don't want the job. I guess you could classify the flaw as failing to consider all of the evidence. The author does not consider that there may still be a lot of people who will be applying.

This almost mirrors exactly what C is saying. Manfred wants the land more than anyone, but he is not going to buy it (maybe because of family reasons too). Just from this fact you cannot conclude that there will be no buyers! Let's say the land is an awesome beach-front property. Just because Manfred doesn't want it, doesn't mean there's not going to be a lot of suitors interested in such a plot--especially if the price is low. The author fails to consider other alternative buyers in the same way that the stimulus fails to consider other applicants.