Adoption agency representative (MGMAT CAT, CR question)

[kunaly]

This is from MGMAT CAT, Critical Reasoning:

Adoption agency representative: It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process. However, there is no truth to the accusation against us of favoritism; our decisions have been guided solely by the best interests of the children. Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the representative's argument depends?

(A) The agency's prior placements of babies with parents who were previously acquainted with its staff have not, in general, been more successful than those with parents unacquainted with the staff.

(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

(C) For a time period equal in duration to that during which the data were collected, the average number of babies placed by the agency is close to ten.

(D) Most prospective parents who apply to adopt babies do not meet the agency's criteria for adoption.

(E) The agency will only place babies with parents who not only meet the legal and institutional criteria for adoption, but who in fact surpass those criteria.

I got this wrong. After reviewing again, I opted for (B) only because I eliminated the others. But the options does not make sense to me.

After several reads, here is how I deconstructed it:
i) in eight cases (out of ten), parents were personally acuainted with at least one staff member of adoption agency
ii) allegation: bias towards selecting parents personally known to staff members
iii) Representative's defence in response to allegation: selection guided by best interest of children as all parents selected surpassed adoption criteria set by agency and by law.

So correct answer choice should point to the fact that parents were chosen solely on the basis of adoption criteria and the fact that a majority were known to staff members, is coincidental.

Now, I am reading option (B) as follows: say, 100 total parents who applied to be considered. 70 passed the criteria for adoption. 10 were selected, of which 8 were personally known. Since a majority of those selected were personally known, one could infer bias. Is my example in line with option (B) or is the second selection i.e. 10 out of 70 an erroneous assumption? If it is erroneous, then it implies: 100 applied, 10 passed the criteria, of which 8 happened to be personally known before hand? If the latter is true, then I am unable to detect this in the statement.

Help would be appreciated. Thanks.

[kyle_proctor]

If "B" is in fact correct, my reasoning would be as follows:

It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.

Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.


(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.


We have to assume that those parents acquainted with the staff did indeed surpass the selection criteria. I think this is the link between the two statements above.

What do you think?

[kunaly]

If "B" is in fact correct, my reasoning would be as follows:

It is true that eight of our last ten babies have been placed with parents who were personally acquainted with at least one of our staff members before initiating the adoption process.

Indeed, all ten babies' new parents far surpassed the adoption criteria set both by the law and by our own policy.


(B) Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, most were personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.


We have to assume that those parents acquainted with the staff did indeed surpass the selection criteria. I think this is the link between the two statements above.

What do you think?

I think a 're-re-reread' of option B suggests that people who passed the criteria were also acquainted (i.e. acquaintence was incidental and not the primary reason for selection). So, in-line with what you have written.

If "B" is in fact correct, my reasoning would be as follows:

Yes, correct answer is B. Thanks.

[jnelson0612]

Thanks Kyle!

[mitesh_sholay]

Even i was only able to get the answer after elimination.
but still dont understand the logic
Doesnt B tell about the adoption agency's bias, as the staffs knew those people before hand?

[jnelson0612]

Even i was only able to get the answer after elimination.
but still dont understand the logic
Doesnt B tell about the adoption agency's bias, as the staffs knew those people before hand?

Let's break down the argument:
Conclusion: The agency is fair. They do not place babies with people just because they know the people.
WHY?
Premise: Of the last ten babies placed, all were with people who substantially exceeded the adoption criteria.

What do I have to assume? That the personal acquaintance with the people is just a coincidence. It just so happens that the people who are really qualified also know the staff. So it *looks* as if the staff may be biased, but in fact the factor at play is the qualifications of the parents. These two factors (knowing the staff and exceeding the criteria) are occurring together.

Does this help a little?

[miteshsholay]

Thanks Jamie. But am still not sure of the answer.

Imagine if the conclusion and the stem of the argument were as follows
Conclusion: The agency is NOT fair. They DO place babies with people just because they know the people.

In this case if the question were "which of the choices would strengthen the conclusion?"
even then, choice B qualifies as an answer.

If the people were acquainted before the application process, it is reasonable to say that the staff may have considered their applications with some favoritism.

Please see if you get my concern.

[tim]

i do not see at all how B would strengthen a conclusion that the agency was unfair. can you do more to explain the logic there?

[sachin.w]

I don't find the conclusion falling apart by negating the way I have done below:

Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, hardly anybody or none was personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.



Please help what is wrong with the negation above.

[jlucero]

I don't find the conclusion falling apart by negating the way I have done below:

Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, hardly anybody or none was personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

Please help what is wrong with the negation above.

First, I'd say the opposite of most would be few. But it still doesn't matter- your negation hurts the conclusion.

If the argument is saying that our decisions are based solely on the best interests of the children and that just happens to mean 80% of kids are placed with people familiar with our staff members and assuming our staff doesn't know 80% of the world, then (A) the people our staff members know are more likely to far surpass adoption criteria or (B) the people our staff members know are more likely to register to adopt children then the average person.

If we say out of the group of people who far surpass adoption criteria, our staff only knows a small % of them, then why do 80% of our kids go to the ones that our staff knows. That would be favoritism and go against the argument.

[mcmebk]

I don't find the conclusion falling apart by negating the way I have done below:

Of those prospective parents who substantially surpassed the criteria for adoption, hardly anybody or none was personally acquainted with agency staff before beginning the application process.

Please help what is wrong with the negation above.

First, I'd say the opposite of most would be few. But it still doesn't matter- your negation hurts the conclusion.

If the argument is saying that our decisions are based solely on the best interests of the children and that just happens to mean 80% of kids are placed with people familiar with our staff members and assuming our staff doesn't know 80% of the world, then (A) the people our staff members know are more likely to far surpass adoption criteria or (B) the people our staff members know are more likely to register to adopt children then the average person.

If we say out of the group of people who far surpass adoption criteria, our staff only knows a small % of them, then why do 80% of our kids go to the ones that our staff knows. That would be favoritism and go against the argument.

Hi Joe

I have to say I don't like this question so much...

To negate option B, It says "it is not true that most were personally acquainted...", okay, so few/some were acquainted, how would such negation make the argument fall apart - Our system is indeed biased?

I had to pick up C out of D out of the 5 options - using the same negation method, we have "only some/few parents does not pass the criteira, or most do pass the criteria", would that be a big question mark, if most of them pass, why are only those acquaintance chosen?

Thank you Joe

[jlucero]

mcmebk,

Notice how the adoption agency doesn't directly refute the claim that they have some element of favoritism. All they say is that the parents that they select are all very qualified. Let's make an analogy: if someone accused me of only dating blondes and I said "I only date nice girls", that wouldn't actually be refuting that accusation. What I would really need to look at is whether the people who I choose to date (blondes) happen to be nicer than the average person that I meet. If I am not dating brunettes who are also nice, than I could be technically right (I'm dating nice people!), but still showing favoritism towards blondes.

[steve.tan.chee.wei]

from how i can interpret the answer is that, since it mention before the adoption process.

thus we must assume that these people already know each other before actually wanting the adoption.

so it means it's just by chances that these people happen to know the staff and was selected by the adoption.

am i interpreting this correctly?

[RonPurewal]

from how i can interpret the answer is that, since it mention before the adoption process.

thus we must assume that these people already know each other before actually wanting the adoption.

so it means it's just by chances that these people happen to know the staff and was selected by the adoption.

am i interpreting this correctly?

That's part of the argument that the representative is making.

[MonroeC973]

I have a different way of arriving at the correct answer. I also picked the wrong answer choice (D), partly because I mislabeled the first sentence as a background/counterpremise and did not intuitively brainstorm the assumption cited in the correct answer or anything closely resembling it. In retrospect, I can justify the first sentence as a premise because it is stated by the same author who later states the premise and conclusion. In these cases in which a premise is a concession (stated by the same author who states the conclusion), and the conclusion is "Regardless of the [concession], [opposite claim] OR [different direction]", a key assumption would be [concession] <> [same direction claim] OR [opposite of the conclusion]. Having this assumption in my queue would have give me a better chance to spot the assumption in the correct answer choice.

In this case:
Premise/concession: people who knew staff adopted babies
Conclusion: no favoritism
Assumption: people who knew staff adopted babies <> favoritism
Correct answer: out of the people who passed adoption criteria, most knew staff