It is clear that none of the volleyball players at yesterday's office beach party came to work today since everyone w...

crushcity November 13, 2019

By the way, I find it so interesting that I'm interpreting the words in a passage completely different than someone trained in identifying all of the points you're teaching. I may not grasp it all, but I'm committed to learn! Thanks again!

shunhe May 2, 2020

Hi @crushcity,

Thanks for the question! So first, let’s take a look at the logic of the original stimulus. Volleyball players didn’t come to work today. Why? Everyone who played volleyball got sunburned, and no one here is sunburned. In other words,

Volleyball —> Sunburned
~Sunburned
Therefore, ~Volleyball (from the contrapositive of the first premise)

And to abstract this a bit

A —> B
~B
Therefore, ~A

Now let’s take a look at (E). All of the people who are on payroll have been employed in the same job for the past five years. So no one who frequently changes jobs is likely to be hired by MXM. The issue with (E) is that it’s definitely not the best answer, and requires way too many assumptions. First of all, how frequent does job changing have to be to count as frequently changing jobs? It’s unclear that five years even fits in that category. Also, is it the case that MXM doesn’t hire people who frequently change jobs, or that MXM just hires people, and they like it so much they stay? The logic isn’t super airtight here, and so we can’t pick (E).

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.