7Sage LSAT

Self-study
Group classes
Tutoring
Admissions consulting
Discussion & resources

Explanations

PT143.S4.Q19

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2
Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3
Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4
Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

PrepTest 143 - Section 4 - Question 19

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Principle: Support When none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position at Arvue Corporation currently works for that company, it should hire the candidate who would be most productive in that position.

████████████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███ ███ █████████ ███████ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████

Summary

The conclusion is that Arvue should not hire Krall for the new position.

Why? Because of the following:

Rule: If none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position currently works for Arvue, Arvue should hire the candidate who would be most productive in the position.

Fact: Delacruz is a candidate for the position and is fully qualified.

Missing Connection

We want to prove that Arvue should not hire Krall. The only way to do that with the given rule is to first make the rule trigger (if the rule doesn’t trigger, it can’t possibly justify the application), and then to make sure that the rule leads to hiring someone else instead of Krall.

To trigger the rule, we need to know that none of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue.

We then need to use the rule to reach the conclusion that Krall shouldn’t be hired. But the rule only tells us who should be hired. So we’ll need to show that someone else instead of Krall should be hired. We know Delacruz is an option (because he’s a fully qualified candidate). So if we knew Delacruz would be more productive than Krall, then Delacruz would be hired instead of Krall.

Pulling it all together, we need to know that (1) none of the fully qualified candidates works for Arvue and (2) Delacruz would be more productive in the position than Krall.

Analysis by Kevin_Lin

Show answer

19.

Which one of the following, ██ █████ █████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████

All of the ██████████ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████

(A) establishes that the rule triggers, but we don’t know who is the most productive. Thus, (A) doesn’t prove that we shouldn’t hire Krall. Maybe Krall would be the most productive.

Of all the ██████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ █████████

(B) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. We don’t know that none of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue. It’s possible one of the candidates who’s fully qualified works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.

Krall works for ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ █████████

(C) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. It’s possible one of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.

Several candidates currently ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████

(D) doesn’t establish that the rule triggers. It’s possible one of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue; in that case, the rule doesn’t apply, and we don’t have any basis to conclude that someone should or should not be hired.

None of the ██████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ █████████

(E) establishes that the rule triggers, because none of the candidates (including any fully qualified candidates) already works for Arvue. So Arvue should hire the most productive candidate, then. And since Delacruz is the most productive (which implies that Krall isn’t), that means Arvue should hire Delacruz and NOT Krall.

Difficulty

Question

76% of people who answer get this correct

This is a difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 146

154

75% 162

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Sufficient assumption

Stems that ask us to provide an additional piece of information that, if true, would make the argument in the stimulus completely valid.

Learn more

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Stimuli that feature conditional and set logic (e.g. A → B, A is true, therefore B is true).

Learn more

Link assumption

Arguments that feature an unjustified shift from one concept to another, which don't fit neatly into other common flaw categories (e.g. moving from premises about "houses" to a conclusion about "dwellings").

Learn more

Rule-application

Stimuli that involve the application of a general rule to specific scenarios.

Learn more

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

157

10%

158

157

76%

166

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!