Q5 - Businessperson: Brenner and Chen are the only applicant

by **ohthatpatrick** Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:22 pm

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We should hire Chen.
Evidence: Brenner and Chen are the only qualified applicants, but Brenner has a history of not getting along with coworkers.

Answer Anticipation:

Prem1: X and Y are the only two (legal) options.
Prem2: X is not a good option for this reason.
Conc: Let's pick Y.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) We have two choices, but we don't have a premise that rules one of them out. Eliminate.

(B) We have two choices, a premise rules one of them out, and the conclusion suggests the other. Looks good!

(C) We have two choices, but we don't have a premise that rules one of them out. Eliminate.

(D) We have two choices, but we don't have a premise that rules one of them out. Eliminate.

(E) We have two choices, a premise rules one of them out, but the conclusion ends up saying we'll pick both, just in a certain order. That doesn't match the original.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is one of the top 10 templates for Match Reasoning or Describe (Procedure): ruling out competing alternatives. In these arguments, you start with 2 or 3 choices, and then you rule out all but one in order to arrive at your conclusion. This problem is probably fairly easy to most students, which is a good reminder that we might not want a CATEGORICAL policy of always skipping over Matching questions. Sometimes an easy version of a hard question type is still gonna be an easier win than something later in the section.

#officialexplanation