Explanation

Sure! We can break this one down by diagramming each quantifier and conditional in the stimulus. 1) Some recent grads - work envr. important 2) if r.g. -> salary important 3) if stress level important -> veteran employee 4) if r.g. -> vacation policy important A) No because we don't know the entire group of people who consider work envr important are r.g.s B) Yes! there are at least some r.g. who find work envr important, and all r.g. find vacation important. Therefore, these must overlap at least sometimes and there must be at least some people who consider work envr and vacation policy important. C) Nope b/c we don't know anything about veteran employees except that it is the necessary condition for caring about stress levels. D) No, because this would require assuming that ONLY r.g.s consider vacation policy important. Some non-recent grads may consider vacation policy important without thinking salary is, for example. E) No, because the veterans may also think salary is important. Hope this helps!

Although I was able to correctly select B as the answer, I'm wondering why A isn't correct? I diagrammed A as such: Work environment > Salary -Salary > -Work environment But if we assume the existence of Work environment then we can turn the all statement into a some statement correct? If so, then: Salary - some - Work environment ...which matches an inference made from statements 1 and 3.

Hi, We cannot turn a some into an all. The passage does tell us that some who consider WE also consider S, we cannot conclude that this means that all of them do. Your diagram of A is correct, but we cannot prove that that diagram must be true. A is stronger than what we are told, which is that some do.

Hi @Emil-Kunkin, my question was regarding turning an all statement into a some statement, not some to all. Does this change your explanation about why A is wrong, or is it still about not being able to prove A must be true?

All does imply some, that is, if all people who care about E also care about S, then some people who care about E also care about S. However, for A to be proven, we would have to take what we know from the passage (that some do) and then assume that because some do, all must (as A says). For A to be true we would have to take a Some and turn it into an all.