Q19 - Principle: When none of the fully

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Justify Application of Principle

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We shouldn't hire Krall for the new position.
Evidence: When none of the fully qualified applicants comes from inside the company, we should hire the most productive person. Delacruz is a fully qualified applicant.

Answer Anticipation:
We need to somehow find a way to make Krall lose out. The principle tells us what to do when the fully qualified applicants DON'T currently work for the company.

It doesn't tell us what to do if we DO have fully qualified applicants that work for the company.

So in order for LSAT to apply this principle and force us to pick someone other than Krall, it will have to be telling us that we have no fully qualified applicants from within the company and that Krall is not the #1 most productive candidate.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This leaves open the question of "which of them is the most productive?"

(B) Delacruz is the most productive of the "outside" candidates, but this answer leaves open the question of whether Krall is an "inside" candidate.

(C) This is the exact ambiguity that (B) established. Our rule doesn't tell us how to compare insiders vs. outsiders.

(D) This leaves open the question of who is more productive between D and K, as well as whether any of the inside candidates have some higher priority in the selection process.

(E) Bingo. Delacruz is #1 is just another way of saying that "Krall is NOT #1"

Takeaway/Pattern: These Justify the Application questions can almost always be solved up front. There is a rule given, and the application usually contains a conclusion that makes use of the right side of the rule. We end up just needing to analzye whether the left side of the rule gets triggered. In this case, we needed to trigger the left side (no qualified applicants are from inside the company) AND to establish that Krall wouldn't be considered the most productive candidate.

#officialexplanation

[baekimsy]

Concerning Q19, at the first time I read it, I was confused about "Krall" because there is no explanation about Krall.
As I understood, about the part "Arvue should not hire Krall" in the application, is it right that the reason the answer E does not comment about Krall is that the principle does not mention "should not hire"?

And I have trouble with Q20. Why is it the answer is A?
I think the conclusion ("if the tropical rain forests are not preserved, important types of medicine will never be developed") is not reasonable, considering its premise in the paragragh. The author said just "many important types of medicine have been developed from~~ only in tropical rain forests", not "all important types of medicine~~". Even though the tropical rain forests are not preserved, isn't it possible that important types of medicine will be developed because its source can be something other than plants in tropical forests? And I don't understand how answer A (an assumption) make the conclusion reasonable. Can someone please explain why A is correct? And why is E not also right?

[kimyooji]

19 & 20 were two difficult questions I struggled with too

let me give a shot with #20

the conclusion is that if the tropical rain forests are not preserved, important types of medicine will NEVER be developed.

first with E, it doesn't matter whether the tropical rain forests should or should not be preserved to make it possible for important medicines to be developed. We're considered with the fact that important types of medicine will NEVER be developed.

so, I was thinkin, what about the ones that's already discovered by the scientist? The author is assuming that its not enough.

so the answer is A.
its saying there are different (perhaps more) to find!

[katie1]

I struggled with these Q's as well.

19 was a very odd blend of the standard principle and Justify the conclusion (aka, Sufficient assumption) question. It was also odd because all the names sound like foreign fish. I think it is helpful to view it as a math question where

Principle + one of the answer choices = application.

To give a simple analogy,

Principle: Only masochistic fools take the LSAT
Application: Therefore, Krall (or anyone's name) is a masochistic fool.

What is the ONLY thing that would, based EXCLUSIVELY on the info I just gave, make the application true? That Krall took the LSAT.

Going back to the question, from the Principle we learn what SHOULD be the order of ranking candidates for a job.

In other words the principle states,

1. Fully qualified AND works at Arvue
> (is greater than)
2.fully qualified AND most productive
> (is greater than)
3.anything less than both of these qualities, that could mean the person has one of them or none.


From our Application, we learn that Krall shouldn't be hired, because Delacruz is FULLY QUALIFIED, then we MUST ASSUME (that is, our answer choice MUST tell us that):

Either
Delacruz works at Arvue (and Krall doesn't, putting him in group 2 or group 3)

Or.

Delacruz is also the most productive of the candidates; the answer MUST also tell us that Krall doesn't work at Arvue, since he CANNOT be in group 1.

E is the only answer choice that accurately fills out our math problem.

Does that make sense?

[katie1]

Regarding 20, the argument breaks down as follows.

First sentence, there are some plants/animals that live ONLY in the rainforest, and scientists have discovered they have medicinal benefits.

Second sentence, there are lots of plants and animals that live ONLY in the rainforest and scientists wonder if they, too, have medicinal benefits.

Conclusion, Therefore, if we don’t preserve the rain forests (so that scientists could study them), then some important type of medicine - that could come only from studying animals/ plants from the rainforest - will not be discovered.

This is more or less a reasonable argument. And you actually spotted the assumption -

Even though the tropical rain forests are not preserved, isn't it possible that important types of medicine will be developed because its source can be something other than plants in tropical forests?

If this were an answer choice, it would be basically correct. The assumption is, There is no other way that we could have these medicines except from the other (aka, not yet studied) plants / animals in the rainforest.

In other words, the assumption has to say two things - 1. the medicinal value can ONLY be derived from a creature from the rainforest and 2. this medicine has not already been discovered.

Answer A gives the same assumption from a slightly different perspective. To paraphrase, A) states that the medicines discovered will be different from the ones already discovered.

To give an example, if the scientists had already learned that one type of rain forest plant cures the flu, and then decide to study the rest of the rainforest, but the ONLY thing the millions of other plants / animals do is also cure the flu, then they just wasted lots and lots and lots of time and energy.

(NB. Taking an answer choice, negating it and then seeing if it weakens the argument - like I just did above in my example - is called the denial test and its a pretty good way to find the answer to NECESSARY ASSUMPTION questions)

In regards to E, E simply restates the conclusion. You are right that it has to be true, but it is not the assumption of the argument, it is the conclusion.

[bbirdwell]

katie1, nice explanation of 19.

kimyooji, you're right about (E) for #20. Combined with katie1's answer, you guys have it covered. Just so you know, though, katie1 - (E) is not the conclusion, which doesn't actually say the forests "should" be preserved. It comes close, but not quite.

Baekimsy, in the future, please post each question in a separate thread.

[skapur777]

For 20, I ruled out the other choices as follows:

B-hurts the argument at best
C- we care about the plant species NOT studied
D- If those speices are stdied by scientists, any substances of medicinal value contained will eventually be discovered...but there might NOT be any substances with medicinal value in them in the first place and thus cannot be an assumption of the argument that if tropical rain forests are not preserved, important types of medicine will never be developed.

If we negate, do we take the contrapositive? If any substance of medicinal value indigenous to tropical forests will not eventually be discovered , then those species were not studied. This doesn't destroy the argument because the criticism that they contain none in the first place. I feel shaky on this.
E- temping but he never says that the tropical rain forests should be preserved, just says what would happen IF they weren't preserved.

My main question revolves around why D is wrong

[peg_city]

Why is C wrong for 19?

[farhadshekib]

For 20, I ruled out the other choices as follows:

B-hurts the argument at best
C- we care about the plant species NOT studied
D- If those speices are stdied by scientists, any substances of medicinal value contained will eventually be discovered...but there might NOT be any substances with medicinal value in them in the first place and thus cannot be an assumption of the argument that if tropical rain forests are not preserved, important types of medicine will never be developed.

If we negate, do we take the contrapositive? If any substance of medicinal value indigenous to tropical forests will not eventually be discovered , then those species were not studied. This doesn't destroy the argument because the criticism that they contain none in the first place. I feel shaky on this.
E- temping but he never says that the tropical rain forests should be preserved, just says what would happen IF they weren't preserved.

My main question revolves around why D is wrong

I think the logical negation of (D) is "NOT all substances of medicinal value contained in plant species indigenous to tropical rain forests will eventually be discovered if those species are studied by scientist".

This wouldn't hurt the argument because the argument claims that it is likely that "many", or some, plants in tropical rain forests contain such substances of medicinal value.

Thus, it doesn't have to assume that any substance of medicinal value contained in those plants will be discovered.

It only has to assume that "some" substances of medicinal value contained in those plant species would be discovered
Thoughts?

[soyeonjeon]

I would have picked E, if I had more time to read all the answer choices, but I ran out of time and stopped at B.

although I do see that E is a better answer, can someone nonetheless help me understand why B would be incorrect?

Thanks.

[monygg85]

For Question 19 can someone please go over the difference between B and E? Im just not catching it! Luckily I put E down bc it fit "more"...but I cant give a solid reason as to why and what the difference is.

This whole problem was just confusing!

[wgutx08]

Hi monygg85,

we can only apply a principle when the condition of the principle is fulfilled, which is, in this case, "when none of the fully qualified candidates currently works for Arvue".

E says "none of the candidates works for Arvue". So naturally, there is no fully qualified candidate who works for Arvue either -- there is none regardless qualification. So the principle can be applied, and Delacruz should be picked since she will be the most productive candidate.

B says" of all the candidates who do not already work for Arvue, Delacruz is the most productive". Well, it does not exclude that there are other candidates who do work for Arvue, and potentially, there are fully qualified ones among these (working for Arvue). So B does not provide us with enough information to fulfill the condition of the principle and we can not apply it.

Hope that helps.

[alex.cheng.2012]

I'd like to take a stab at Q19.

P: no fully qualified candidate that works for company --> hire who would be most productive
A: D fully qualified --> not hire K

Correct Answer (E): This says that none of the candidates work for the company. So this fulfills the sufficient condition. There are no fully qualified candidates that work for the company (there are no candidates that work for the company, so that also means that are no fully qualified candidates that work for the company). Now that the sufficient condition is fulfilled, we have to fulfill the necessary condition, which is to hire who would be the most productive. Answer (E) says that D would be the most productive, so that fulfills the necessary condition and allows us to justify the application of the principle: D should be hired over K.

Incorrect answers:
(A): This satisfies the sufficient condition. All of the fully qualified candidates do not work for the company. So none of the fully qualified candidates work for the company. We now must fulfill the necessary condition, which is to choose the most productive candidate. But the answer stops there, and doesn't give us anything that says D would be the most productive. We cannot justify the application with this answer.
(B): Of all the candidates that don't work for the company, D is the most productive. This would satisfy the necessary condition, but what about the sufficient condition? For all we know, K could be a fully qualified candidate that works for the company. If that is so, then we fail the sufficient condition. When the sufficient condition is failed, we don't know anything.
(C): Similar to B. D would be the most productive, so the necessary is satisfied. But it says K works for the company. Is K a qualified candidate? We don't know. If K is a fully qualified candidate, once again, the sufficient falls apart and we cannot draw any conclusion
(D): Several candidates work for the company. Are they fully qualified? Once again, to beat a dead horse, if they are, then we don't know what happens, since it fails the sufficient condition. K and D do not work for the company. Okay, but that doesn't tell us anything. And it definitely doesn't help us fulfill the necessary condition because it doesn't talk about who would be the most productive.

[maryadkins]

Great explanation!! Well done!

[gplaya123]

I just wanted to throw something out there!

A B and D have same issue.

We don't know anything about Krall.

A) What if Krall is already working for the new position?
B) Again what if Krall is already working for the new position?
D) Ok, so Krall doesn't work but what if he is the most productive one?

C) has two issues:
1. Krall is working for the company already.
2. Dealacruz might be working for the new position already.

E only works!