Q8 - Conscientiousness is high on most

[sunhwa2881]

Can you please explain why the correct answer choice is (A)?

[ebrickm2]

Can you please explain why the correct answer choice is (C)?

It's not, it's B, check your answer sheet.

[sunhwa2881]

Oops. I meant to say (A). My answer sheet from "The Next 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests" says the correct answer choice is A. Is this an error?

[bbirdwell]

Yes, the answer is A. It's important on this one to keep in mind what you specific question task is.

Here, we are to identify a paradox -- two points that seem to contradict. 4 of the choices will explain why each contradictory point can be true, and 1 choice will not do that. Therefore, we should find the 4 that do explain it and eliminate them.

So first off, what's the paradox?

1. Conscientiousness is high on the list for employers
2. Conscientious people are less likely to find jobs in 5 months than those that shirked responsibilities.

So how can this be?

Let's look at B-E

(B) explains it. Conscientious people are more picky.
(C) explains it. Conscientious people have bad interviews.
(D) explains it. Shirkers lie to look good.
(E) explains it. Conscientious people take their time.

(A) doesn't explain it. So there are more shirkers out there looking for jobs. This does not explain why conscientious people are less likely to find jobs IN SPITE OF THE FACT that conscientiousness is a highly desirable quality.

[MayMay]

Regarding choice C-
My problem with this is that we don't know how the non-conscientious people interview. Maybe the non-conscientious people are SO bad at interviewing that they will always be worse than the conscientious interviewers, no matter how terribly the conscientious interviewers interview?
I am wary of answer choices that only talk about one group in "absolute terms," as opposed to in relation to the other group.
for instance, in answer choice B, D, and E- we see how the conscientious people are in relation to everyone else.

what do you guys think of this?

[patrice.antoine]

Bump!

I chose (A) thinking that if more are looking for jobs it means more are able to be placed/find a job. Please explain how this rationale is wrong for this question.


Thanks in advance.

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

There are two questions here, so I'll take them separately.

MayMay: Yes, your point is great. Another way to think of it: Some people will perform badly at interviews no matter what. This gives us one reason. But that doesn't really tell us why the conscientious people are WORSE than the non-conscientious people.

Patrice: That doesn't make any sense! The more people that are looking for a particular job, the less likely any individual person in that pool is to get hired. This is simply statistical. If there are 100 jobs out there in a certain field, and 500 people looking, that's a better situation than 1000 people looking for the same 100 jobs.

Hope that helps!

-t

[patrice.antoine]

Patrice: That doesn't make any sense! The more people that are looking for a particular job, the less likely any individual person in that pool is to get hired. This is simply statistical. If there are 100 jobs out there in a certain field, and 500 people looking, that's a better situation than 1000 people looking for the same 100 jobs.

Hope that helps!

-t

Hey Tommy.

My rationale was that since there are more People A (those who shirk) looking for jobs than People B (conscientious), they increase their probability of being placed since there are more of them looking.

But I think I see my error. I equated finding with looking. Just because they looked for jobs does not mean they found a job. Tricky LSAT.

[LaurenL251]

How are A and E totally different? Isn't E implying that there are more NOT conscientious people looking for jobs than conscientious? And doesn't A say that there are more NOT conscientious people looking for jobs than conscientious also?

Is the difference that in E there could be 0 conscience people looking and 100 NOT conscience people looking (and the NOT conscience people are being hired because there is literally no one else applying) while A is saying 100 conscience people vs 101 NOT conscience people looking (so why are these NOT conscience people being hired more often that conscience people because it's practically the same amount in both groups)...

Really confused!

Thanks in advance!

[HughM388]

Hey Guys,

There are two questions here, so I'll take them separately.

MayMay: Yes, your point is great. Another way to think of it: Some people will perform badly at interviews no matter what. This gives us one reason. But that doesn't really tell us why the conscientious people are WORSE than the non-conscientious people.

Patrice: That doesn't make any sense! The more people that are looking for a particular job, the less likely any individual person in that pool is to get hired. This is simply statistical. If there are 100 jobs out there in a certain field, and 500 people looking, that's a better situation than 1000 people looking for the same 100 jobs.

Hope that helps!

-t

I rather think that it's your argument that doesn't make any sense. Let's say there's one job available; 100 people are applying for it, and 99 out of that 100 are shirkers (because there are naturally more shirkers in the applicant pool, since they're less likely to stay in jobs), then it's overwhelmingly more likely that a shirker is going to get the job than the conscientious individual.

[EricW539]

Hey Guys,

There are two questions here, so I'll take them separately.

MayMay: Yes, your point is great. Another way to think of it: Some people will perform badly at interviews no matter what. This gives us one reason. But that doesn't really tell us why the conscientious people are WORSE than the non-conscientious people.

Patrice: That doesn't make any sense! The more people that are looking for a particular job, the less likely any individual person in that pool is to get hired. This is simply statistical. If there are 100 jobs out there in a certain field, and 500 people looking, that's a better situation than 1000 people looking for the same 100 jobs.

Hope that helps!

-t

How are you not contradicting yourself in A's explanation? If there are more people looking for a particular job, and the composition of those looking is greater for shirkers, then yes, an individual person is less likely to get hired. In fact, the person less likely to get hired to be conscientious, as there are less of them to get hired.