#21 - Company policy: Eligible employees will be granted up to six weeks

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True, Principle. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[CristinaCP]

Can you please explain why [E] is correct? I mapped out the stimulus as saying eligible -> apply for benefit at least 3 months prior and have a year of full-time employment. We know that Sara satisfies both of those necessary conditions, but wouldn't saying that she's thus eligible and should be granted the leave be making a mistaken reversal of the conditional logic?

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Hi Cristina,

So you are right that it diagrams:

Eligible --> applied 3 months prior + has 1 year of employment.

When looking at answer choice E, we know that if Maria were eligible then she would have:
1. applied 3 months prior
2. has at least 1 year of empleoyment

Ok so this tells us that she satisfies the condition.

Since she satisfies the condition we look at the first sentence which tells us eligible employees = should be granted.

Since all the condition did was establish that she is eligible, this allows us to conclude that it should be grated. E does a good job connection the conditional in the second sentence with the first sentence of the stimulus.

Remember that the order of how the sentences in the AC are written doesn't determine the logical order. So despite the fact that the conclusion is at the end, this isn't a mistaken reversal.

Hope that helps

[lemonade42]

I'm still a bit confused, if we satisfy both necessary conditions of "at least three years + one year of employment", wouldn't that only say it's possible that she is eligible, not guarantee that she eligible? I understand how if she is eligible, then she will be granted parental leave. But we only know that it's possible that she will be eligible, so how can we for sure say that she should be granted parental leave?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi lemonade,

I'm not sure you have the rule correct. The rule is to apply three months prior to the leave, and have been working full-time for at least a year prior to the application. If someone is eligible, they must meet those requirements. The only example we have that correctly gives an example of the rule in practice is the final one.

Answer choice (A): This one says that he didn't work for the company for a full year prior to the application for leave, therefore he wouldn't meet the requirements of the policy. He should not be granted leave, but this answer choice says he should be. Therefore, it can't be correct.

Answer choice (B): In this case, the individual meets the requirements to have leave, but it says she shouldn't be granted leave. This does not match the policy---we have no reason to conclude she shouldn't get leave.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice ends that he shouldn't be granted leave, again, even though he meets the requirements to be eligible. There is nothing in the policy that would conclude that he wouldn't be eligible or it wouldn't be granted, therefore this does not have to be true.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice concludes that the individual SHOULD get leave despite not meeting the necessary condition that he be a full time employee. Therefore, it's incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the only answer choice that follows the policy as written. This individual worked the required time and applied early enough, thus she meets the requirements for eligibility.

Hope that helps! The other answer choices are eliminated as not following the requirements or creating a situation that the policy doesn't address. The only option where the policy is consistent is that final answer choice.