#20 - Ann will either take a leave of absence from

[ellenb]

Thank You for your explanations, and I have some follow-up questions.

1)
First, I thought that the conclusion it is something that we have to get to and in this example we just have to find the missing piece.
For instance, when, I have:

B-->C
C-->D
------
Conclusion A-->D (than the missing piece would be A-->B, than we can have A-->D)

So, I am not quite sure, why were you able to use the conclusion and add it to one of your statement (premises). It is something that you have to come to by combing your statemetns.

2)
Second, this is a conditional statement example correct? The causal will have different type of wording. So, I do not understand what role will a cause and effect will make a difference for this statement. For example when you mention
"I think where you might be confused is that the logic chains are all in reverse chronological order, which is why it's important to keep Conditional Reasoning and Cause and Effect reasoning distinct."

3)
Third, i am not quite sure what do you mean by the statement below. How answer choice D leads us to come with the conclusion?
"But we know from the beginning that Ann will either quit or take a leave of absence, but we have no specific connection to anything that would cause Ann to take the leave. And thats what Answer D offers: A direct connection to the option of taking a leave of absence."

Thanks
Ellen

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore, can anyone answer the follow-up to my question.

Thanks

Ellen

[David Boyle]

Dear Powerscore, can anyone answer the follow-up to my question.

Thanks

Ellen

Hi ellenb,

Am working on it right now, shall have answer soon.

David

[David Boyle]

Thank You for your explanations, and I have some follow-up questions.

1)
First, I thought that the conclusion it is something that we have to get to and in this example we just have to find the missing piece.
For instance, when, I have:

B-->C
C-->D
------
Conclusion A-->D (than the missing piece would be A-->B, than we can have A-->D)

So, I am not quite sure, why were you able to use the conclusion and add it to one of your statement (premises). It is something that you have to come to by combing your statemetns.

2)
Second, this is a conditional statement example correct? The causal will have different type of wording. So, I do not understand what role will a cause and effect will make a difference for this statement. For example when you mention
"I think where you might be confused is that the logic chains are all in reverse chronological order, which is why it's important to keep Conditional Reasoning and Cause and Effect reasoning distinct."

3)
Third, i am not quite sure what do you mean by the statement below. How answer choice D leads us to come with the conclusion?
"But we know from the beginning that Ann will either quit or take a leave of absence, but we have no specific connection to anything that would cause Ann to take the leave. And thats what Answer D offers: A direct connection to the option of taking a leave of absence."

Thanks
Ellen

Hello ellenb,

Let me see if I can help; you've certainly put in a lot of time on this question! Good work ethic!!
It took me a while to look over all your work and Jason's response. I can't read Jason's mind, of course, to know exactly what he was thinking (and what he said was helpful, of course), but as for your question 1 above: I'm not sure I understood it. We do tend to insert the conclusion. E.g., if a premise is "2 bananas", and the conclusion is "5 bananas", the "justifier" would be "3 bananas". And all three of those should be put together to make sense. ("2 + 3 = 5")
As for your question 2: yes, this is conditional, so maybe when Jason says, "I think where you might be confused is that the logic chains are all in reverse chronological order, which is why it's important to keep Conditional Reasoning and Cause and Effect reasoning distinct", he may just mean to keep on your toes about time issues. Causal, of course, has to go from sooner (cause) to later (effect), but conditional doesn't need that. Since the stimulus had some confusing time issues, just keep on top of those.
And as for question 3: we know we can get to FO ("find out") from the contrapositive of the first clause of the second sentence. In that clause, we see that when FO is negated, the arrow points to ALA ("allowing a leave of absence"). The contrapositive is slash ALA arrow FO.
So, let's insert answer choice D. That is diagrammed ALA arrow L ("leave of absence"). The contrapositive of that is slash L arrow slash ALA. Of course, we know that Q ("quitting") arrows to slash L, since if she quits, she can't take a leave of absence (except a permanent one!). So, you can now make a chain, Q arrow slash L arrow slash ALA arrow FO, from all the work we did. The inference (cutting out the middle parts) is Q arrow FO, which is the conclusion in the third sentence of the stimulus.
Whew! This is a horrible problem to diagram, so I sympathize with all your efforts. Hope this helps! Good luck,

David

[ellenb]

thanks David, you totally clarified my questions. that is exactly what happened. I think Jason used the conclusion as one of his statements. Where you mentioned that we have 2 and 3 and = we have the conclusion of 5 ( I think he might have accidently used the conclusion of 5) So, that is why I was confused.

Also, in this example we do not need to use all the premises correct?

So, to make sure that I got it.


From the second sentence,
not FO-->ALA

from the answer: ALA-->L (this was hard to see since, I did not have the whole chain)

not FO-->ALA-->L

And from the first statement. When we know that she can not do both, quit her job and take a leave of absence she has to do one or the other.
We diagram that as(based on the either or rule, one is present the other is absent):

Q--->not L
L--->not Q


not FO-->ALA-->L-->not Q

if we take the Contrapositive we get the answer Q-->FO

So to repeat the questions above:

We did not have to use all the statements in the stimulus?
How did you know how to find the missing link? since it did not appear so obvious. Do you just look at all diagramed statements and see what combines with what to give you the conclusion? It just does not seem so practical during the test to diagram everything. So, how would you do it during the testing environment? Would you just read and see what combines with what or would you recomend to diagram all the statements and than see it.

If you look back at Jason's explanation he arrived at the same conclusion through a different explanation.
Yours made a lot more sense, since it goes with the example of the 2+3 make a 5.
I just would like to know if there is a shortcut for this type of examples. And if when we see a either or statement for example not both A and B, have to pick either A or B, it means

if I have A --->cannot have B
and
if have B ---> cannot have A

(the most that I can have is one, and the least is one)

I know this is a bit of a complex problem, but it ties many interesting concepts.



Thanks in advance,

Ellen

[David Boyle]

thanks David, you totally clarified my questions. that is exactly what happened. I think Jason used the conclusion as one of his statements. Where you mentioned that we have 2 and 3 and = we have the conclusion of 5 ( I think he might have accidently used the conclusion of 5) So, that is why I was confused.

Also, in this example we do not need to use all the premises correct?

So, to make sure that I got it.


From the second sentence,
not FO-->ALA

from the answer: ALA-->L (this was hard to see since, I did not have the whole chain)

not FO-->ALA-->L

And from the first statement. When we know that she can not do both, quit her job and take a leave of absence she has to do one or the other.
We diagram that as(based on the either or rule, one is present the other is absent):

Q--->not L
L--->not Q


not FO-->ALA-->L-->not Q

if we take the Contrapositive we get the answer Q-->FO

So to repeat the questions above:

We did not have to use all the statements in the stimulus?
How did you know how to find the missing link? since it did not appear so obvious. Do you just look at all diagramed statements and see what combines with what to give you the conclusion? It just does not seem so practical during the test to diagram everything. So, how would you do it during the testing environment? Would you just read and see what combines with what or would you recomend to diagram all the statements and than see it.

If you look back at Jason's explanation he arrived at the same conclusion through a different explanation.
Yours made a lot more sense, since it goes with the example of the 2+3 make a 5.
I just would like to know if there is a shortcut for this type of examples. And if when we see a either or statement for example not both A and B, have to pick either A or B, it means

if I have A --->cannot have B
and
if have B ---> cannot have A

(the most that I can have is one, and the least is one)

I know this is a bit of a complex problem, but it ties many interesting concepts.



Thanks in advance,

Ellen

Hello Ellen,

Either/or may actually allow for both A and B, except if it says specifically, "either A or B but not both." However, sometimes common sense in a give situation will let you see that A cannot be present at the same time as B.
As for using everything in the stimulus: formally, the part about the university offering her the fellowship ("OF", for "offering fellowship") may not need to be considered to get the right answer. It may have to be considered in an informal way, though, i.e., why are we talking about her taking the fellowship if she didn't get offered one?
Finding the missing link is something you often want to try to do. Some clues are, for Justify questions, say, that a new element in the conclusion will appear in the correct answer. (If it didn't appear in the premises, it has to come from somewhere!) So do look at the diagrammed statements and see if something new has to be coped with, or things have to be linked up in a way that was missing in the stimulus.
It's true that you may run out of time to do all the diagramming you want on the test. Do what you can. Sometimes, if you bog down on that, you can just make a common-sense guess by reading the stimulus carefully. In question 20, all the other answers besides D just seemed funny to me, so by process of elimination, I suspect I'd've picked D even without diagramming.

Hope that helps,
David

[Sherry001]

Hello could you please please explain this question to me.
I am so lost ! I was stuck between c and d .

1) Ann will take a leave of absence from tech or quit
2) quit or have the take leave -> she gets a fellowship.
3) tech will allow her leave --> they don't find out her fellowship offer

C: Ann will quit -> only if they find out she has been offered the fellowship

A) irrelevant
B) irrelevant
C) fellowship--> tech company wouldn't allow leave of absence
D) if tech company allows Ann to take a leave of absence-> Ann will take leave of absence
E) irrelevant

Thank so much

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, Sherry,

Answer choice D is better than answer choice C, because answer choice D nails down the one last option flapping loose.

By the rules, Ann will only be allowed to take a leave of absence if she gets offered the fellowship and Technocomp does not find out she's been offered the fellowship. That is the only circumstance under which Ann can take a leave of absence. But that doesn't prove that she will take the leave of absence if it is available to her.

We know she won't do either if she doesn't get offered the fellowship, we know she'll quit if she gets offered the fellowship and Technocomp finds out about it, but we don't know for a fact that she'll take a leave of absence if the opportunity is available, without answer choice D filling that gap.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[Oakenshield]

Can we think like this?
Conclusion: Ann will quit her job at T only if T finds out she has been offered the fellowship.
If T doesn't find out that but Ann will still choose to quit her job. --- The conclusion will be destroyed. In order to properly draw the conclusion, we must make sure that if T doesn't find out that, Ann will not quit her job. So D) is an ideal answer: if T doesn't find out that-- allow her to take a leave of absence -- Ann will take a leave rather than quitting the job.

[Jonathan Evans]

Oakenshield, you have described an assumption necessary to reach the conclusion. In this problem, we need something that if assumed would be sufficient to guarantee the conclusion's validity. In this case, you are correct to identify the elements necessary to create a conditional eliminating the possibility that Ann quit even though she has been offered a leave of absence, but you need to make sure that you're always working for the left to the right on a Justify the Conclusion problem. The negation test does not work on these problems.