Please explain

Alright, so the relevant sentence about the applicant's requirements is set forth in an "either/or" statement. So, we will rewrite it in "if/then" form: (remember, the following rule should be applicable for any applicant that meets the manager's requirements) If the applicant has not earned their doctorate and does not have a track record of published research, then she has five years' work experience. So, we will diagram like so: not ED or not TRPR ==> 5WE not 5WE ==> ED and TRPR We are looking for the answer choice that does not accurately meet the manager's requirements. Answer choice (C) is the correct answer because Edward St. John does not fulfill either of the manager's requirement. Even though he has over 5 years of work experience, it is work experience as a business consultant, which is not one of the relevant fields, i.e. sociology, psychology, and education. He also does not have a "track record of published research." He has published six novels. Novels are not works of research. They are works of literature. Thus, Edward St. John has not both earned a doctorate and shown a track record of published research, nor has he had five years of relevant work experience. Thus, the applicant in answer choice (C) does NOT meet the manager's requirements, making answer choice (C) the correct answer. Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

For answer choice A, it does not mention she has a record of publishing, so why is this not the correct answer choice?

@Ashley-Tien, the question says that to be eligible for the job you must have "either an earned doctorate and a track record of published research, OR else five year's work experience." In (A) she did not earn a doctorate or have a track record of published research (her doctorate was honorary). However, she had worked in education for the past 11 years, thus fulfilling one of the two possible requirements.

Why isn't B the correct answer? Being a doctoral candidate isn't the same as having earned a Doctorate. I kept debating between B and C for that exact reason.

Hi @Zella, Happy to help! You are correct that being a doctoral candidate is not the same as having a doctorate; however, the alternative qualification to having a doctorate is that a successful candidate could have five years' work experience in the field of sociology, psychology, or education. Answer choice (B) tells us that, prior to undertaking doctoral studies, Alvin Johnson worked as a psychology researcher for seven years. Therefore, he has more than five years' work experience in a relevant field and meets one of the two possible requirements. Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Are we to read the first part of the sentence as either or?? I feel like the first sentence states that a doctorate and (i.e., +) a track record of Published Research is a must, a mandatory requirement for the job. Both a doctorate and a Published Research are necessary to satisfy the requirement, not as an alternative to one another. Applicants must have either an earned doctorate and a track record of published research or five years' work experience. Thank you for your help in advance.

Please disregard my post, the "or else five years' work experience." This is the alternative to the first 2 requirements. I misread your explanation.

@NoorFA, happy you got things sorted out!