#19 - Principle: When none of the fully qualified candidates

[Adam Tyson]

The language "of all the candidates who do not work for Arvue" strongly suggests that there are at least some that DO work there. If I said "of all the humans who are not currently living on the international space station, Jones is the likely to be the next one to live there", you would be okay inferring that there are some people that do live there.

But we don't need to infer that in order to eliminate answer B, noobie, because the answer at least ALLOWS for some candidates to be currently working there! That is, it does nothing to eliminate that possibility, and since we can't know whether any candidates work there or what we should do if they do, this answer cannot justify the conclusion. There's an unknown factor that leaves us in limbo! Limbo is no good when you want certainty. So, whether you make that inference or not, B still isn't as good an answer as E is, because E is perfect.

[Dancingbambarina]

Am I right that the "should" here can equate to "should not", meaning "should not" does not directly trigger the contrapositive?

Thanks very much

[Adam Tyson]

The contrapositive is not a factor in this question, but if it were to be, it would look like this:

IF they should not hire the most productive candidate, THEN a fully qualified candidate works for the company.

This tells us nothing about who they should hire. Do we hire a fully qualified candidate who works at the company? That would make sense, but it isn't proven by these statements. And since the application is not trying to prove anything about who does or doesn't work at the company, we shouldn't be focused on the contrapositive. We should be focused on the original relationship we were given. How do you prove you should not hire a particular person for "a position" (meaning just one person can be hired)? By showing that someone else should be. Answer D does that for us, proving that Delacruz should be the one hired.