nakulgar wrote:Q) Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarassing to the university.After all, to have been publicly censured by the head of the university, as Edwards was, a professor must either have revealed information that embarrased the university or have been guilty of gross professional negligence , and Edwards professional behavior is impeccable .

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above ?

(A) According to company policy , employees who are either frequently absent without noptice or who are habitually late receive an official warning .Since Ms.Jensen has never received such a warning , rumors that she is habitually late must be false .

(B) Any employee of Wilkins,Waddel,and Sloan, who discussed a client with a member of the press will wither be fired or demoted. But since Wilkins employees never discuss their clients at all , no Wilkins employee will ever be demoted .

(C) Anyone promoted to supervisor must either have worked on the shop floor for three years or have an influential sponsor.Daniels , therefore , has an influential sponsor, since he was promoted to supervisor after a year on the shop floor.

(D) To earn a merit salary increase , an employee of TGX must either bring in new clients or develop innovative products.No innovative products were developed at TGX this year, so TGX employees must have brought in many new clients.

(E) Anyone who is either awarded a letter of commendation or who receives a bonus must be recommended by a company officer.Simon has been reommended by a company officer and will receive a bonus, so he must not have been awarded a letter of commendation .

I will post the OA later so that everybody can discuss this first .

It's C. The argument syntax is this:

If A (centure), then B (embarrass) OR C (neglect).
A.
Not C.
Therefore, B.

The same applies to choice C as follows, and it is the correct answer choice:

If X (promotion), then Y (influential supervisor) or Z (three years on shop floor).
X.
Not Z.
Therefore, Y.

Choice D omits the second line in this syntax. Other choices miss lines or distort the train of logic.

(C) is the closest.
If 1 then 2 else 3

Yes C is the right answer. Actually options C, D and E are all closer but there is a flaw with options D and E as follows:


Option D: The base is only not given i.e whether the TGX employees received the increased salary or not is only not given hence u cannot decide.

Option E: It becomes too obvious and does not address the point properly...


Hope this would help...

Superb explanation given by rustypolymath!!! Thank You....

can some expert plz explain why option " d " is wrong .i find it very similar to the stimulas reasoning

(D) To earn a merit salary increase , an employee of TGX must either bring in new clients or develop innovative products.No innovative products were developed at TGX this year, so TGX employees must have brought in many new clients.


Option D is wrong. Lets go for the syntax that is mentioned It's C. The argument syntax is this:

If A (centure), then B (embarrass) OR C (neglect).
A.
Not C.
Therefore, B.

For B to be the conclusion, the event A should occur.

If I say that the tsunami occurred because of either scientific mishap or green revolution.

For any of these causes to be claimed as the final conclusion, at least the tsunami should occur right...

In option D it is given that no innovative products were developed this year. Yes true but it should at least say that the employees received a merit increase in salary this year.

That is why the option D is incorrect. Option C is the correct answer...

I hope this post helped you for better understanding.

Q) Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarassing to the university.After all, to have been publicly censured by the head of the university, as Edwards was, a professor must either have revealed information that embarrased the university or have been guilty of gross professional negligence , and Edwards professional behavior is impeccable .

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above ?

(A) According to company policy , employees who are either frequently absent without noptice or who are habitually late receive an official warning .Since Ms.Jensen has never received such a warning , rumors that she is habitually late must be false .

(B) Any employee of Wilkins,Waddel,and Sloan, who discussed a client with a member of the press will wither be fired or demoted. But since Wilkins employees never discuss their clients at all , no Wilkins employee will ever be demoted .

(C) Anyone promoted to supervisor must either have worked on the shop floor for three years or have an influential sponsor.Daniels , therefore , has an influential sponsor, since he was promoted to supervisor after a year on the shop floor.

(D) To earn a merit salary increase , an employee of TGX must either bring in new clients or develop innovative products.No innovative products were developed at TGX this year, so TGX employees must have brought in many new clients.

(E) Anyone who is either awarded a letter of commendation or who receives a bonus must be recommended by a company officer.Simon has been reommended by a company officer and will receive a bonus, so he must not have been awarded a letter of commendation .

I will post the OA later so that everybody can discuss this first .


Another way of looking at this problem is that for a given result to take place, there are two causes and since one is not applicable to the subject concerned, the other must be the valid cause.

Going through the options,

A)Here the line of reasoning is that since the result has not taken place, the causes must have not happened.
B)Here the line of reasoning is that since a cause never happens, the result will never take place.
C)Here the line of reasoning is that the result can be due to two causes. As the result has taken place and one of the causes is not applicable, the other must be the valid cause. Correct and in line with the reasoning of the parent argument.
D)Can be easily terminated as here it is not even mentioned that the result has taken place (i.e., it is not even established that the salary increase has taken place)
E)Here the line of reasoning is there are two causes that may lead to the result. As one of the causes and the result have taken place, the other cause must not have taken place. This is also not in line with the parent argument.

Hence, C!

Hope this easy to understand.