Question #1054

How did we arrive to C?

Started by Valerie · started 2016-10-04 22:03 · last activity 2022-10-14 03:00 · 3 replies

(C) "No SP who are WK to their peers regret their career choices." WK ==> RCC NOT RCC ==> NOT WK But we know that if WK ==> HS, and ALL HS==> WO AND SM NOT HS==> NOT WK. NOT SM OR NOT WO==> NOT HS So how did we arrive to answer choice C if being WK means also being HS which requires BOTH WO AND SM, while C gives us only one (SM) of the two necessaries? SM ==> NOT RCC RCC ==> NOT SM This is where I see the problem: RCC ==> NOT SM ==> NOT HS ==> NOT WK ( this one is fine) but WK ==> HS ==> SM [here we would need the second necessary "AND WO"] ==> NOT RCC Please clarify. What am I doing wrong?

Replies

  1. Mehran · 2016-10-05 22:10

    @Valerie thanks for your message. Let's take a closer look. "All highly successful salespersons are both well organized and self-motivated," HSS ==> WO & SM not WO or not SM ==> not HSS "characteristics absent from many salespersons who are not highly successful." not HSS-some-not WO or not SM "Further, although only those who are highly successful are well known among their peers," WKAP ==> HSS Note: I used HSS here instead of HS because I know that the first S & N statement was about "highly successful salespeople" so I want to keep the variables consistent. not HSS ==> not WKAP no salespersons who are self-motivated regret their career choices. SMS ==> not RCC RCC ==> not SMS Okay, now using these, we can create the following transitive chain: WKAP ==> HSS ==> (WO &) SM ==> not RCC Note: I put WO in parenthesis because it is SM that invokes the final part of the chain here. Contrapositive of the chain is as follows: RCC ==> not SM ==> not HSS ==> not WKAP This allows us to properly conclude: WKAP ==> not RCC RCC ==> not WKAP This is exactly what (C) states. "No salespersons who are well known among their peers regret their career choices." WKAP ==> not RCC RCC ==> not WKAP As such, (C) would be the correct answer. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

  2. Valerie · 2016-10-05 22:26

    @Mehran ooooh... I see now. Thank you!

  3. NULL · 2022-10-14 03:00

    @Merahn.... "characteristics absent from many salespersons who are not highly successful." not HSS-some-not WO or not SM Please, did you work WO & SM--> HS, to arrive at your answer: not HS--> not WO or not SM? If so, I thought "people who are", always constitute a sufficient condition, making the diagram: "characteristics absent from many salespersons who are not highly successful." to be: not HS---> WO & SM not WO or not SM-->HS? OR, not HS---> not WO & not SM, to be WO or SM--> HS

Sign in to reply.