#8 - Conscientiousness is high on most firms’ list of traits

[est15]

Hi, I was a bit troubled that A was the answer for this question because in a very similar question from a previous PrepTest I did, the argument used numbers to its advantage.

This previous question I'm talking about is October 2000, Section 1, #17. C supposedly strengthens the argument because if there are 8 accountants while only 2 actuaries, statistically speaking it's more likely that the embezzler is an accountant.

But then for June 2002, Section 2, #8, A is the correct answer because more people looking for jobs doesn't mean more people are finding them. But then couldn't the same be said about #17 from October 2000? That just because there are more accountants, it doesn't mean that the embezzler is more likely to be an accountant?

I'm confused about which stance the testmakers want me to take - does the higher number help support the argument or does it do nothing to the argument? What exactly is the difference between these two questions that causes their reasoning to be different?

[David Boyle]

Hi, I was a bit troubled that A was the answer for this question because in a very similar question from a previous PrepTest I did, the argument used numbers to its advantage.bout is October 2000, Section 1, #17. C supposedly strengthens the argument because if there are 8 accountants while only 2 actuaries, statistically speaking it's more likely that the embezzler is an accountant.

But then for June 2002, Section 2, #8, A is the correct answer because more people looking for jobs doesn't mean more people are finding them. But then couldn't the same be said about #17 from October 2000? That just because there are more accountants, it doesn't mean that the embezzler is more likely to be an accountant?

I'm confused about which stance the testmakers want me to take - does the higher number help support the argument or does it do nothing to the argument? What exactly is the difference between these two questions that causes their reasoning to be different?

Hello est15,

Answer A seems to mean that with all the shirkers around, it's likely harder for them, the shirkers, to get jobs. (Which may worsen the paradox, as opposed to resolving it.) All the other answers seem to support that the conscientious won't get the jobs, as opposed to shirkers not getting jobs.

Hope this helps,
David

[est15]

I'm still unsure why these two questions from two different PrepTests seem to suggest conflicting reasoning.

For June 2002, Section 2, #8, I agree that A is right because more shirkers looking for jobs doesn't mean that more shirkers will actually find jobs, so the conscientious employees shouldn't be any less likely to find jobs than the employees who shirk.

But if that above reasoning is correct, then I don't understand why for October 2000, Section 1, #17 answer choice C weakens the argument. Using similar reasoning as above, isn't it incorrect to say that a higher proportion of accountants makes it less likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries? What if the actuaries had special access to financial records that the accountants didn't - then even though there are fewer actuaries they are still likely to be the culprits.

Can someone explain why the second question uses a large number to support the increased likelihood of something while the first question says that the large number doesn't affect the likelihood? Is there something fundamentally different between these two questions? Thanks!

[David Boyle]

I'm still unsure why these two questions from two different PrepTests seem to suggest conflicting reasoning.

For June 2002, Section 2, #8, I agree that A is right because more shirkers looking for jobs doesn't mean that more shirkers will actually find jobs, so the conscientious employees shouldn't be any less likely to find jobs than the employees who shirk.

But if that above reasoning is correct, then I don't understand why for October 2000, Section 1, #17 answer choice C weakens the argument. Using similar reasoning as above, isn't it incorrect to say that a higher proportion of accountants makes it less likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries? What if the actuaries had special access to financial records that the accountants didn't - then even though there are fewer actuaries they are still likely to be the culprits.

Can someone explain why the second question uses a large number to support the increased likelihood of something while the first question says that the large number doesn't affect the likelihood? Is there something fundamentally different between these two questions? Thanks!

Hello,

For the 2002 one, jobs are sort of a zero-sum game, i.e., there are only so many jobs to go around. So, more shirkers means that they all have less of a chance to find a job.

For the 2000 one, it's maybe also a "zero-sum game" in that there's only one culprit. However, the more accountants there are, then, everything being equal (unless, say, your "special access to financial records" scenario above somehow comes to pass), the more percentage likelihood that one of the accountants is guilty.

So, in the 2002 one, it's true that if, say, there are 2 conscientious employees and 2 million shirkers, there may be a larger chance that *some* shirkers find a job, since there're so many. (With 2 million of them, then, say, some might be the boss's son, some may have an OIympic gold medal, etc., which outweighs their shirking and could get them hired.) However, each *particular* shirker will have a terribly low chance of getting a job--because there are 2 million of them, even though in the aggregate, the 2 million shirkers might snag jobs from the outnumbered conscientious employees. (Just as in the aggregate, 8 accountants are more likely to be crooks than the 2 actuaries--even if the percentage chance for any one accountant being a crook goes down, since there are a whopping 8 accountants.)

David

[ShannonOh22]

Hi - just as a side note, it's really confusing when questions to other tests are brought up in the explanation for this question on this test. Nothing in the previous threads has cleared anything up for me on this particular Resolve the Paradox X question.

Can someone please help explain why A does not resolve the paradox? If there are more "shirkers" out looking for jobs, that would provide a reason as to why the conscientious people are in comparison less likely to find a job...the number of conscientious people looking for jobs is smaller, so the proportion of jobs found/attained by those people would be smaller too.

Is there something I missed in the question that would lead me to select A without hesitation?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Shannon! Your case for answer choice (A) helping to resolve the paradox would make sense if the stimulus read a little differently - say, if it said something like, "Yet a recent study found that over the last five months, the number of laid-off conscientious individuals who found new jobs was lower than that of their peers who shirked their workplace responsibilities." Then I think (A) would resolve the paradox, for the reason you mentioned: the raw number of shirkers who are laid off is simply higher. However, in the stimulus we have, the language "less likely" implies a percentage, rather than a raw number.

For example, let's say I read a report that said "Over the past decade, high school students in Indiana were less likely than high school students in Illinois to graduate in 4 years." That doesn't mean that the raw number of Indiana high school students who graduated in 4 years was lower (Indiana's population is half that of Illinois, so of course the raw number is lower), it means that the percentage of students to graduate in that time was lower.

So it doesn't matter if the raw number of shirkers is higher, we're interested in the "paradox" of why the percentage of conscientious individuals finding new jobs is lower than the percentage of shirkers finding new jobs, despite firms valuing conscientiousness. (A) doesn't explain why that percentage is lower like the other answer choices do. Hope that helps!

[Legallyconfused]

Hi there!

How are A and E totally different? Isn't E implying that there are more NOT conscientious people looking for jobs than conscientious? And doesn't A say that there are more NOT conscientious people looking for jobs than conscientious also?

Is the difference that in E there could be 0 conscience people looking and 100 NOT conscience people looking (and the NOT conscience people are being hired because there is literally no one else applying) while A is saying 100 conscience people vs 101 NOT conscience people looking (so why are these NOT conscience people being hired more often that conscience people because it's practically the same amount in both groups)...

Really confused!

Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E has nothing at all to do with numbers or percentages, but is only about the urgency with which a conscientious person will go job hunting after being laid off. Whether there are millions of them or very few, if they are kicking back and living off their savings, not really actively seeking out a new job, that might explain why those conscientious people are less likely to find new jobs within 5 months of being laid off. The shirkers with little to no savings, meanwhile, are out scrambling for work before they end up broke and homeless!

The stimulus has nothing to do with the NUMBER of people in each group, but rather the LIKELIHOOD of a member in the group finding a new job within 5 months. Likelihood is a percentages idea, not a numbers idea - if there are 1000 conscientious people and 500 of them get new jobs quickly, that's 50%. If there are 10 shirkers and 8 of them get jobs, that's 80%. The shirkers are more likely (higher percentage, higher odds) of getting a new job than the conscientious ones despite any difference in numbers. The numbers aren't relevant. And that is why answer A does nothing - more of them looking for work tells us nothing about the percentage of them that are getting jobs. It's a numbers answer to a percentages problem, and that makes it a loser.

I hope you are less confused!