In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at Radeco, and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants. Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions about these job applicants?
(A) All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(B) All of the applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(C) None of the applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco.
(D) None of the applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco
(E) None of the applicants had previously worked for either Evco or Radeco
OA is A
I chose C, it is already said that each offered jobs to half of these applicants, so if A were true then the one half of qualified applicants could have got a job in both these companies.So it still does not satisfy the conclusion.
By any change are some of the answer keys for critical reasoning wrong. Is there a post which states the key corrections,if any?
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions about these job applicants?
(A) All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(B) All of the applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(C) None of the applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco.
(D) None of the applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco
(E) None of the applicants had previously worked for either Evco or Radeco
OA is A
I chose C, it is already said that each offered jobs to half of these applicants, so if A were true then the one half of qualified applicants could have got a job in both these companies.So it still does not satisfy the conclusion.
By any change are some of the answer keys for critical reasoning wrong. Is there a post which states the key corrections,if any?
