Veritas Session - BF question

IMO A

reply2spg wrote:To get into a top MBA program one must have five years of work experience and a 90th percentile GMAT score. Alexis has a 95th percentile GMAT score and five years of experience in the work force, so Alexis must be accepted into a top MBA program.

The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a piece of evidence; the second is a conclusion that must be true based on the evidence presented.
(B) The first is a piece of evidence; the second is a conclusion that is not necessarily true based on the evidence.
(C) The first is a conclusion that follows from the evidence; the second is a piece of evidence.
(D) The first is a conclusion that is not necessarily true based on the evidence; the second is a piece of evidence.
(E) The first is the conclusion of the author; the second is a cause-and-effect relationship that supports the conclusion.

No OA

IMO B

my answer is B, whats the answer, guys?

IMo B

Good discussion, everyone.

On these boldfaced questions, process of elimination is pretty helpful, as the correct answer must describe the two portions exactly. If you find a discrepancy on either point, you can eliminate that choice.

Here, we can break down the premises and conclusion to note that the second boldfaced portion (preceded by "so" and including a "must be") is the conclusion. Therefore choices C, D, and E are eliminated because the first portion is not the conclusion.

Between A and B, the only difference is whether the conclusion must be true or not. We know that Alexis meets two of the MBA program's requirements - the work experience and GMAT score - but we do not know whether there are other conditions that need to be met. Therefore, the conclusion is not necessarily true, and the correct answer is B.

Keep in mind in these situations that simply meeting some of the conditions necessary to the conclusion is not necessarily sufficient to make that conclusion. If you can come up with any hypothetical situations that would be consistent with the premises but counter to the conclusion, you can show that the conclusion isn't guaranteed.

For example, here we could say that, in order to be admitted, one needs to have the work experience, the GMAT score, and to have paid the application fee. That "application fee" hypothetical does not counter the premises, so it's a situation that could be true. And in that situation, Alexis may not have met all of the necessary conditions, so we can't conclude that she's going to be admitted. Because there is still room for doubt as to whether she "must be" accepted, the conclusion is not necessarily true.