#20 - The company president says that significant

[bli2016]

Hi- I am wondering if C would be correct if this was an assumption question as well? I got confused because I knew this was a Justify question, so I thought C was too strong of an answer choice for a Justify question, and chose E instead. Could someone explain how the answer might be different if this was an assumption question? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

There's really no such thing as "too strong an answer for a Justify question", bli. The goal of a Justify the Conclusion question is to prove the answer is true. If you prove it and go way beyond the minimum proof needed, you've still proven it, right? If I want to prove that my house is the nicest house in Burbank, I could do that by saying it is the only house in Burbank, or even by saying it is the only house on Earth. "Too strong" is not a problem for Justify questions! It is a problem for Assumption questions, of course.

E doesn't justify the conclusion because we don't know whether any lawyer was told. All that answer does is narrow the requirements for violation of the contract, without telling us anything about whether it actually was violated. E isn't a good Assumption answer, either, because the conclusion that the contract was violated does not assume that the contract was violated - it says it! Assumptions are unstated. What was assumed? C, while it is a Justify answer, also works as an Assumption here. Try the Negation Technique - if SOME lawyer was told, then there is no longer any evidence for the claim that the contract was violated. That wrecks the argument and proves that C is an assumption. Some Justify answers will also work as Assumption answers, some won't.

I also think that the author has assumed that Yeung is the only lawyer in the company's legal department. If that was not the case, then there would again be no evidence that no lawyer was told, wrecking the argument. And once again, that same answer would also justify the argument. Neat, huh?

[bli2016]

Ah, I did forget about the important distinction between justify and assumption questions here. Thanks for pointing that out, Adam!

[harvoolio]

Is my understanding correct?

Our conclusion is (after negating the sufficient condition in converting unless to if and taking the contrapositive):

If the company president and any lawyer in the company’s legal department were not told about procedural changes before the changes were made, then the contract was violated.

We are given the premise:

The company president was not told about the procedural changes.

Therefore, to justify the conclusion, we need the other sufficient condition to be satisfied, "Any lawyer in the company was not told about procedural changes before the changes were made." which is answer (B) rephrased.

Thanks.

[Alex Bodaken]

Harvoolio,

You said it perfectly - that is exactly right. I have nothing to add because you nailed it!

Best,
Alex

[harvoolio]

Thanks Alex.

[queenbee]

Hi
I think I understand explanation, but just wanted to break it down even more so I can identify this faster on the exam:

The president or any lawyer must be told before the changes were made.

We are justifying the statement that the contract was violated (no if's)

The president was not told
so in order to justify that it was violated, we can infer that no lawyer was told

Is that correct?
Thank you

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

We can't infer, we need to provide, the fact that no lawyer was told. This is a Justify question, not a Must Be True question.

Robert Carroll

[lemonade42]

Hello,
Can you check to see if I'm thinking about this correctly? The conditional conclusion confused me at first. Using the Unless equation, it is:
Contract not violated ---> Grimes or President is wrong
Contrapositive: Grimes or President is not wrong ---> Contract violated.

So in my mind, I initially thought the conclusion was just "contract was violated". But then I thought, perhaps I should be justifying that "Grimes or the President is wrong". So, I would need to show "contract not violated" because that is the sufficient condition for "Grimes or the President is wrong". But I can't get "contract not violated" as a necessary condition because the stimulus only contains a conditional statement that says:
Contract not violated ---> president or any lawyer is told
So then I should just prove that the contract was violated instead.
Q1) Was I was thinking too much here or should I have just ignored the "unless Grimes or president is not wrong" and tried to prove the contract was violated in the very beginning? I get confused when the conclusion is a conditional statement. Should I be justifying just the necessary condition or both the sufficient and necessary conditions of the conclusion?

Also because the stimulus says
Contract not violated ---> president or any lawyer is told
Q2) Would the contrapositive be:
President is not told AND no lawyer is told ----> contract is violated

Or is the negated form of "any lawyer is told", "any lawyer is not told" which means it allows at least 1 lawyer to not be told and other lawyers can be told.... What is the negative form of "any"?

[Dana D]

Hey Lemonade,

Starting with your second question - your logic is correct here. The stimulus gives us two conditions here to not break the contract - either the president needs to be told, or any lawyer in the legal department needs to be told before the changes were made.

Company president told
OR any lawyer told Contract violated

The contrapositive of which would be:

Contract violated president not told AND no lawyer was told

The 'unless' logic in the last sentence is less important - it is saying that the contract had to be violated based on the information presented in the stimulus. The only other alternative would be that Grimes or the president is wrong.

However, in thinking about this logic - there's a pretty big gap here. The only people listed as not being told are the company president or Yeung, and we don't even know who Yeung is. If Yeung is the only lawyer in the company's legal department, or if answer choice (C) is true and no lawyers in the department were told, then it makes sense to say the contract must be violated (unless Grimes or the president is wrong).