PrepTest 144, Section 4, Question 1
Aisha: Vadim is going to be laid off.(42 more words not shown)
Aisha's conclusion follows logically if(7 more words not shown)
- AThe firm values(10 more words not shown)
- BWhen Vadim was(14 more words not shown)
- CVadim is the(7 more words not shown)
- DEvery other programmer(9 more words not shown)
- EIt is bad(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Vadim has done excellent work. Why are we so sure Vadim is the programmer being laid off?
Management has decided to lay off someone, but that doesn't identify the person. The firm's policy gets us closer: it strictly lays off the most recently hired programmer. Now we know whose job is at risk. We still need to know whether Vadim is that person.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to make the conclusion follow. Connect Vadim to the policy: Vadim was the most recently hired programmer. Then the decision to make a layoff, the strict policy, and that fact together establish the conclusion. The quality of Vadim's work doesn't override the hiring-date rule we've been given.
Working the answers
- A
What the firm values doesn't tell us who was hired last. It could value experience highly while Vadim has worked there longer than another programmer. The policy would then select that newer person. A doesn't establish the missing fact about Vadim.
- B
Explaining the policy to Vadim doesn't establish that it applies to Vadim in this layoff. The relevant question is who joined most recently, not whether everyone was warned about the rule.
- CCorrect
Vadim is the most recently hired programmer, which is exactly the person the firm lays off under its strict policy. Management has already decided to lay off a programmer. Those facts leave no missing step between the policy and the prediction about Vadim.
- D
Someone can do exemplary work while colleagues do even better work. But even if that is true here, work quality isn't what selects the person to be laid off. Hiring order does. D could be true while another programmer was hired after Vadim and must be the one laid off.
- E
A bad policy can still be followed. Judging the rule doesn't tell us whether Vadim is the employee selected by it. We are establishing what will happen under the policy, not deciding whether management should have adopted it.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.