Critical Reasoning

If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.

(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.

(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.

(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

Please provide your reasoning..

OA soon

This one appears in the Veritas Critical Reasoning book. I do not want to get in the way of anyone answering this question, I just want to say that this is a great example of what you want to do on inference questions - Eliminate the 4 incorrect answers. Eliminate any answer that could be false. That is the key. If it could be false it is gone. Most answers that could be false are "outside the scope" of the stimulus. Can you identify the four answers that are outside the scope?

David

In my opinion the answer should be E. Please refer to the explanation below:

(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.
YS: The stimulus dosen't warrant this inference. If Shero dosen't win, it is still possible for a 3rd person who is less qualifies to be appointed.

(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.
YS: Even if the polls are not a good indication, even then Shero might win.

(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
YS: Similar flaw as in A

(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.
YS: Can't be inferred.

(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
YS: Correct. If the polls are good indication, Shero will win.

I would go with E too.

Thanks All for pitching in!

OA is E indeed.

However, I am not able to get the usage of "someone" in the choice E.
According to the stimulus, "McGuinness" will be appointed if Shero wins the election.

I rejected this choice at first as I felt "someone" is a bit broad for this to be an inference.

Please clarify if I am missing something.

Actually "someone" or "some" are good terms to look out in inference questions. You are looking for something that has to be true. If you would have picked an answer with ALL or NONE then you are limiting the threshold/cushion of standing correct.

We know that Stauning > Mcguiness in terms of qualification.

or Mcguiness < Stauning

We know that if the polls are accurate then Mcguiness will be appointed who is less qualified than Stauning. This is what E states.

Hope that helps.

"Someone" in this case refers to a person. Only "one" person can be appointed. The first line in the statement is "McGuinness will be appointed if Shero wins the election", clearly showing that someone refers to McGuinness. Thus, if Shero wins (according to polls), McGuinness will be appointed.

Thanks for explaining..

still not convinced.
Can you please show some official question with a similar usage.

My point is that the stimulus is so specific about the person who will be appointed in case Shero wins. However, the answer says "someone". Doesn't "someone" refer to some person and not necessarily "McGuinness" ?

Bouyant -

You are correct that "someone" is not specific, but as faraz_jeddah and yuvraj.sub indicate McGuiness is someone AND he is someone less qualified than Stauning. You left out that part. It is not just any person, but a person that we know to be less qualified than Stauning. That is the point of the answer, to be correct but not too obvious.

Remember that great questions have this in common. They are able to fool you as you complete them, but once you know the correct answer you see that it must be correct. In this case only E is something that must be true.

The correct answer simply must be true and Choice E must be true.

Thanks David!

got it now.
So,according to the information in the stimulus, we know that the only "someone" , who is less qualified than Stauning is "McGuiness". Hence, we can infer that "someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed".....

Take away: "think within the scope of the passage"

That is just right! On inference questions it is all about staying within the scope of the stimulus.