Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 4 · Question 19

Incorrect. If this is the case, then the most productive candidate should be hired, but there's no indication that's Delacruz, so the application isn't justified.

Incorrect. This answer implies that there are some candidates who already work for Arvue. While we don't know if they're fully qualified, they might be, and so the application isn't justified.

Incorrect. Without knowing if there's a fully qualified candidate who already works for Arvue—which this answer doesn't establish since we don't know about other candidates or if Krall is fully qualified—we can't tell if the principle applies to the application.

Incorrect. Without knowing if any of those several candidates are fully qualified, we don't know if the principle applies to the application.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
P: No fully qualified candidate for a new position at Arvue is in-house → Hire most productive candidate

A: Don't hire Krall; hire fully qualified Delacruz

Answer Anticipation:
This is an interesting situation because they're trying to get us to go down a rabbit hole with some type of convoluted fact pattern, but the principle itself is relatively straight-forward.

The application doesn't tell us anything about Krall, but it does tell us Delacruz is fully qualified. The principle, however, is about the situation when none of the fully qualified candidates are already working at Arvue. If Delacruz works at Arvue, then that rule doesn't apply—since it's not true that no fully qualified candidate works at Arvue as Delacruz is and does. If the principle doesn't apply, then we have no way of knowing who to hire.

So the correct answer first must establish that none of the fully qualified candidates already work at Arvue.

Next, note the conclusion of the application—it can feel as if it says that Arvue should hire Delacruz, but that's not actually the conclusion. Rather, it says that Krall shouldn't be hired because Delacruz is in the running. It's possible to justify that by showing not that Delacruz should be hired, but that Krall would be less productive than her. Even if Delacruz isn't hired, if Krall would be less productive than at least one other candidate, then the application stating that Krall shouldn't be hired would be justified.

Answer Explanation:
If none of the candidates work for Arvue, then the principle applies, and the most productive person should be hired. If, as this answer states, that's Delacruz, then she should be hired, justifying the application that Krall should not.

Key Takeaway:
Remember that when a conditional statement's sufficient condition isn't met, it doesn't apply to the situation at hand. Since this question is asking us to justify the application of that principle, it must apply. Make the situation match the sufficient condition in these questions.