Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 4 · Question 1

Incorrect. This answer says nothing about Vadim's experience, so it does nothing to justify the conclusion.

Incorrect. Whether or not Vadim is aware of the policy and fully understands it is irrelevant to whether he's the one getting fired, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Vadim is a great programmer, but this firm is going to fire a programmer and it has a policy of firing the most recently hired programmer. So Vadim is getting fired.

Answer Anticipation:
The rule this firm follows is that it always fires the most recently hired programmer when they're going to fire one. In order to conclude that Vadim is going to be fired, the argument needs to establish that he's the most recently hired one!

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the firm's rule of firing the most recently hired programmer means Vadim is going to lose his job, justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments on the LSAT frequently establish a rule but don't actually provide enough information to know how it'd be applied in a specific situation, trying to trick you into believing that an argument wouldn't raise that rule without it applying. Don't fall for it! The argument needs to establish a rule and that it applies in a given circumstance. In fact, there are whole questions based around that disconnect! (Principle/Application questions, for example.)

Incorrect. The rule establishes seniority (or, well, juniority?) as the relevant consideration when looking to fire someone, not skill, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Whether or not it's bad policy, it is policy, and this answer does nothing to establish who's going to suffer for it.