Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 4 · Question 21

This argument concludes that Mac "should be granted the leave." If Mac is eligible, he should be granted the leave, according to P1. However, P2 shows that Max is not eligible for the leave. According to P2, if Mac did not apply three months before the leave or was not employed full-time for at least one year before the application was submitted, then Mac is not eligible. Mac has been employed full-time for one year but submitted his application three months ago. This means Mac was only employed for nine months at the time of his application. So, Mac is not eligible and shouldn't be granted the leave. Therefore, (A) does not follow the company's policy.

This argument concludes that Sara "should not" be granted the leave. According to P2, Sara won't be eligible for the leave if she did not apply three months before the leave or was not employed full-time for at least one year before the application was submitted. However, Sara has both of those conditions. She applied four months before the birth of her child, and she's been employed full-time for three years.

Although Sara recently took a leave of absence, the company policy doesn't suggest that this should be a problem. After all, P2 doesn't require at least one year of continuous full-time employment.

So, we don't have any reason to believe that Sara isn't eligible for the leave. Therefore, (B) does not follow the company's policy.

This argument concludes that Hal "should not" be granted the leave. According to P2, Hal won't be eligible for the leave if he did not apply three months before the leave or was not employed full-time for at least one year before the application was submitted. However, Hal has both of those conditions. He applied three months ago, and his child hasn't yet been born. Plus, he's been a full-time employee for at least two years.

Although Hal only requests two weeks off, the company policy doesn't suggest that this is an issue. After all, P1 states that eligible employees will be granted "up to" six weeks of leave. It doesn't say that eligible employees must use all six weeks. So, we don't have any reason to believe that Hal isn't eligible for the leave.

Therefore, (C) does not follow the company's policy.

This argument concludes that Dudley "should be granted" the leave. If Dudley is eligible, he should be granted the leave, according to P1. However, P2 shows that Dudley isn't eligible for the leave. To be eligible, Dudley needs at least one year of full-time employment. However, Dudley is only a "part-time" employee. Without full-time status, Dudley is not eligible and shouldn't be granted the leave. So, (D) does not follow the company's policy.

This argument concludes that Maria "should be granted the leave." If Maria is eligible, she should be granted the leave, according to P1. And P2 shows that Maria has both conditions that are required for eligibility. To be eligible, Maria must have applied three months before the leave and been employed full-time for at least one year before the application was submitted. She's been working full-time for two years and submitted the application six months before her adoption. So, she meets both requirements for the leave.

That said, this doesn't guarantee that Maria should be granted the leave. Just because Maria meets two requirements for parently leave doesn't mean she should be granted the leave. To assume that she should be granted leave involves confusing a "then" condition with an "if" condition. After all, there could be other requirements for leave (like a certain status at the company or a specific healthcare policy) that Maria doesn't possess. Or, Maria could be disqualified from receiving parental leave for some reason. Maybe Maria was discovered to have embezzled millions of dollars from the company since requesting parental leave. In other words, Maria could be ineligible for an unknown reason.

So, this is less the correct answer than the least incorrect answer. While (A) through (D) all make the wrong determination about an employee's eligibility, (E) at least makes a potentially correct decision about the employee's eligibility. Note that this isn't how any other Principle (Must Be True) questions function on the LSAT. The rest of these questions make provably valid conclusions. We'd argue that this question is, therefore, poorly written and should be excluded from this test. But, given the information in the answer choices, we have to reluctantly select this one.