Q24 - Human resources director: While only

[ping_golfer_23]

So I'm a little confused as to why B is more correct than the rest. D is enticing to me but I guess I can see why it's degree is too strong? I just can't seem to wrap my head around why B follows.

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

Inference questions of this type can be tricky because there are a bunch of statements, some overlapping, some not, and they're not all conditionals, so it doesn't lend itself to easy diagramming. My approach is to read it through pretty carefully, maybe twice, aiming just to understand the statements. I'm not trying to master them or memorize them or totally see how they all fit together. I'm just shooting for solid comprehension so that it will be easier to evaluate the answer choices.

So that was the prep: the real work begins with the answer choices. We're trying to figure out which four are not supported by the stimulus, and which one is.

(B) is correct because we know that "some recent university graduates consider work environment an important factor in choosing a job," and "every recent university graduate considers vacation policy an important factor."

That means there must be overlap between the two groups, that is, between people who consider work environment important and people who consider vacation policy important; we know some recent graduates do both.

As an analogy, imagine if I said,

Some apples are red.
All apples are fruit.

Then it would have to be true that some red things are fruit. Exactly the same structure as this problem.

As for the incorrect answers:

(A) is incorrect because we don't know that these recent college grads are the only people who consider work environment important. Maybe high-school dropouts do, too, and they don't care about vacation policy.

(C) is incorrect because we have absolutely no clue about the connection between veteran employees and work environment.

(D) is tempting, but don't get turned around! We know that all recent grads consider vacation policy important, but that doesn't mean that everyone who considers vacation policy important is a recent grad; maybe PhD candidates also care about it, but not about salary.

So be careful about reversing these "all X are Y" statements; they don't also imply that "all Y are X."

And you're right, if this said "some" instead of "all," I believe it would be correct.

(E) is incorrect because maybe these veteran employees do care about salary.

Does that answer your question?

[ping_golfer_23]

Yes, thank you!

[carefreeai36]

I'm still a few confused by the statements that "only some resent university grads consider work environment an important factor...". Does this statement mean that "the only people" consider this is some of the recent university grads?

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Ah, no -- it means that some recent university grads, but not all, consider work environment an important factor.

Good question.

[ban2110]

Hallo,

I'm still a little confused by (D). From my understanding, the stimulus is saying the following:

RG --> SI
RG --> VI

RG = recent grad; SI = salary important; VI = vacation important.

And answer choice (D) is saying: SI --> VI, which I thought was a valid inference.

Can someone please help me clear up this confusion? I understand how B is correct but D keeps trying to lure me in...

[ban2110]

Hallo,

I'm still a little confused by (D). From my understanding, the stimulus is saying the following:

RG --> SI
RG --> VI

RG = recent grad; SI = salary important; VI = vacation important.

And answer choice (D) is saying: SI --> VI, which I thought was a valid inference.

Can someone please help me clear up this confusion? I understand how B is correct but D keeps trying to lure me in...

I thought it through again and I think was able to see the error in my thinking! Even though it is valid to say SI --> VI, it is not necessarily true that that VI --> SI which is what answer choice (D) is saying.

Is this the proper way to conceptualize this?

[ohthatpatrick]

From
RG --> SI
RG --> VI

you CANNOT infer any connection between SI and VI. You know that SOME people (RG's) are both SI and VI, but we don't know
SI --> VI or VI --> SI.

Consider these:
play in NFL --> male
play in NFL --> rich

Can we infer that
male --> rich
or
rich --> male
??

Neither. Just that SOME rich males exist.

[ban2110]

From
RG --> SI
RG --> VI

you CANNOT infer any connection between SI and VI. You know that SOME people (RG's) are both SI and VI, but we don't know
SI --> VI or VI --> SI.

Consider these:
play in NFL --> male
play in NFL --> rich

Can we infer that
male --> rich
or
rich --> male
??

Neither. Just that SOME rich males exist.

Thank you so much for this! Especially the simplified analogy; it finally clicked for me!

[ahn2014]

I am still confused why (A) is wrong.

Stimulus is saying(because it uses 'only')
Consider work environment an important factor --> Some recent university grauate

In other word, the only people who considers work environment an important factor are some recent university graduate.

(A) is saying all the people who consider work environment an important factor(= some recent university graduate) also consider salary an important factor, which is identical to stimulus.

Where did I lose my way?

Thank you

[tommywallach]

Gilad addressed this in his post above.