PT61.S4.Q19 - principle: when none of the fully

Tina Cho

I did not like any choices in this question at first...am I only the one who feel PT 61's LR is kind of different/harder??
Anyway,
In the principle it does not say it should hire a candidate who would be fully qualified when none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position at AC currently works for the company. It only tell to hire the candidate who would be most productive in that position.
Why in the application it says Delarcuz is fully qualified? Is it necassary? SInce it is not appeared in the principle I thougtht the correct answer will include that, saying something like "XXX+hire the candidate who is fully qualified"
Why is E correct even though it does not include this?

Thank you
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-19/

cacrv567

This question gives us a principle and a scenario where the principle has been applied, but the scenario is missing a piece so we have to fill in the missing part to justify the application.

Principle:
fully qualified candidates do NOT currently work at Arvue --> hire who would be most productive

Application:
Arvue should not hire Krall because Delacruze is a fully qualified candidate

What additional details do we need to provide to this scenario so as to explain why we should not hire Krall? From the given principle, we cannot provide a case where we can prove that Krall should NOT be hired because the contrapositive of the principle doesn't allow us to work out that conclusion. But the principle does allow us to arrive at the conclusion that Delacruze should be hired (by adding in some additional assumptions).

By telling us that Delacruze is a fully qualified candidate, the application triggers half of our sufficient condition. If we can plug-in additional details to fit the rest of the principle, then we can make the case that Delacruze should be hired, not Krall. Match up the rest of the conditional. Delacruze is a fully qualified candidate who does NOT currently work at Arvue AND he's someone who would be most productive. If we assume this, we can conclude that Arvue should hire Delacruze. E captures this additional detail that fills in the missing piece of the application.

TBH, I definitely did not go through this reasoning during PT, just POE. But if you can have a solid understanding of the conditional reasoning in the principle, and understand the facts provided in the application, going through the answer choices is an efficient way to get through this problem.

Tina Cho

Thanks for ur reply, but I don't think you addressed my question...It only tells to hire the candidate who would be most productive in that position in the principle.
Why in the application it says Delarcuz is fully qualified? Is it necassary?
Or is it just fluff?

Tina Cho

@cacrv567

nye8870

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-19/

Tina Cho

@nye8870 cant access to it...

nye8870

look at @CUNY_2017 's comment under video explanation.
"Premise When none of the fully qualified candidates for a new positiion at ACorp currently works for ACorp – it should hire the candidate that would be most productive in that position
Conclusion ACorp should hire Delacruz and not Krall
Predict Delacruz would be the most productive in the position
What am I looking for? Sufficient Assumption (if assumed the conclusion can properly be drawn)
A no
B this is tempting – leave it…
C can’t say whether Krall does or does not work for ACorp
D what?
E this seems to do a better job than B – because it rules out internal candidates who are alluded to, but the hiring policy in their regard is not directly discussed so the conclusion is more certain. B would be a PSA answer"

Tina Cho

Hi, thanks for copying it
I guess "in the position" means the "qualified" part right

cacrv567

@"Tina Cho" - sorry, not sure if I'm getting your question, can you elaborate?

The application tells us that Delacruze is fully qualified and this is how we can start to line up the pieces with the help of E to get to the conclusion we should not hire Krall.

LSATaker

Hi, I'm not sure why E triggers the rule...the principle says "When none of the FULLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES for a new position...currently works..." and E says "None of the candidates already works..." It does not match and I thought E does not trigger the principle neither.
And in the application it says D is fully qualified so I thought the principle does not apply anymore (no sufficient condition anymore so as LG rule disappear) so that confused me too.
Also, I chose C but it does not say whether K is fully qualified or not so maybe that's the reason why C is wrong?

Also...I'm still not sure why B is wrong too...even if it is subset, I thought the rule still applies.
Even if there are candidates who already work for Arvue, I thought due to the principle, those people will be removed from candidates automatically and it will not matter...

LSATaker

By the way why did they bring up Krall?
I think there is no need to talk about him...just a fluff?