Q15 - People who have doctorates

[ebrickm2]

For answer choice E, does it mean that of all of those people who are interested in improving their intellect, the only people that make them up as a group are individuals who are not concerned with making money?

Such that the entirety of liberal arts individuals all possess the characteristic of monetary disinterest? Do I follow the language of the answer choice, it was quite hard for me to untangle.

any hints on making reading this easier, or comprehending it for that matter?

[giladedelman]

Yes, you've got it! It does mean what you say it means. But I would try putting it even more simply:

No people interested in improving their intellects are concerned with making money in the business world.

One strategy that you may find useful in trying to untangle these types of statements that describe the relationship between two groups is to ask yourself, okay, what does this tell me about group A? What does it tell me about group B?

In this case, I asked myself, okay, what does this tell me about people who are concerned with making money in the business world? Well, none of them are interested in improving their intellects. What does it tell me about people interested in improving their intellects? None of them are concerned with making money in the business world.

Does that make sense? Does it seem like it would be useful? Let me know.

[lizsh132]

Okay, I am having a little bit of trouble of figuring out why the answer choice I selected (C) is wrong. I get why (E) is right now, after looking it over, but I'm still not sure why C is wrong.

Is it because it is a mistaken negation or reversal? (converse/inverse).

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

[giladedelman]

Right, (C) is backwards. To make this argument work, we need to assume that if you're interested in improving your intellect, you're not concerned with making money. But (C) gives us

not interested in making money --> interested in improving intellect.

That doesn't help because it doesn't tell us anything about somebody who's interested in improving his intellect, so it wouldn't help us conclude that companies wouldn't hire people with liberal arts degrees.

Does that answer your question?

[jrany12]

Can someone please write out the formal logic in the stimulus? I'm having a hard time trying to diagram this out, especially the conclusion. So far I have:
Doctorates in lib arts ---> Interested in Intellect
Companies hire ----> Concerned with Financial Gain

Concl: Companies hire ----> ~Doctorates in Lib Arts???
or ~Companies hire ----> Doctorates in Lib Arts??

If putting in the (E) correct assumption: Int Intell ---> ~Finan Gain
The conclusion that would work with that is DLA---> ~Comp Hire.
I'm just confused. Any help would be great. Thanks!

[giladedelman]

You're right on the premises, although it's worth keeping in mind that these aren't really conditional statements: "rarely" is not the same as "never."

But if we flub it a little, the argument looks like this:

doctorates --> interested in intellect
not concerned with gain --> companies rarely hire
----
therefore, doctorate --> companies rarely hire

(E) says
interested in intellect --> not concerned with gain

So if we plug it in, we get this nice chain:

doctorates --> interested in intellect --> not concerned with gain --> companies rarely hire

Ta da!

Does that clear it up for you?

[jrany12]

Is it safe to say that "Who" is a sufficient condition indicator? Bc when you diagrammed, all the sufficient conditions were the parts of the sentences modified by "who". (i.e. who aren't concerned with gain; who have doctorates in liberal arts)

Thanks for the clear diagrams and explanations! Your diagram made things much easier to understand.

[giladedelman]

No! It's not safe to say that. I mean, it's perhaps more common that such a phrase will turn up on the sufficient side, but it's by no means guaranteed. For instance, I could say,

All clowns are people who have gone to clown college.

That would mean

clown --> went to clown college

So in this case your "who" phrase is on the necessary side. You need to look at the relationship between the categories being compared, not at the categories themselves.

[cannabise1983]

Thank you for your easy and thorough explanation. However, there is one conundrum for me

That is, according to second sentence in stimulus, it says

"Companies, however, rarely hire people who are not concerned with the financial gain"

and you have this sentence changed like this

not concerned---->rarely hire

but I think "rarely hire should be placed on sufficient condition area, in other word, I feel "not concerned", and "rarely hire" should chage their place like this

rarely hire----> not concerned

because there are no sufficient condition indicator like "any or all", and no necessary condition indicator like "only"

could you tell me why and how those two elements above work as you describe?

Thank you again!!

[giladedelman]

You're right that there's no conditional trigger here, and like I said above, we're not really dealing with conditional statements. But imagine we were told that companies never hire people not interested in financial gain. Clearly, we'd represent that as

not interested in financial gain --> companies won't hire you

With this argument, I did the exact same thing, except I added that word "rarely" back in to remind myself this isn't an absolute relationship.

Your proposed conditional doesn't make sense. We know that people who aren't interested in financial gain are rarely hired, but we don't know that all people who are rarely hired are uninterested in financial gain.

Does that answer your question?

[zainrizvi]

(B) would be a necessary assumption, but not a sufficient assumption of this argument, right?

Edit: actually it wouldnt right since there is a subtle scope shift( do not care about money vs does not caring about MAKING money in business world) and (interested in liberal arts vs DOCTORATES in liberal arts)

some people who have doctorates in liberal arts do not care about making money in the business world would be the necessary assumption.

[syousif3]

I got this question right but as I'm reviewing im having a hard time figuring out why C is wrong ..


for E.. it would be

Interested in improving intellectuals---> not concerned with making money..

C: (because of the word only)
Interested in improving intellectuals--->not interested in making money

if you look at both answers they both start with the word only and thats why i cant see any difference because what follows the word only would be a necessary condition

[shodges]

I got this question right but as I'm reviewing im having a hard time figuring out why C is wrong ..


for E.. it would be

Interested in improving intellectuals---> not concerned with making money..

C: (because of the word only)
Interested in improving intellectuals--->not interested in making money

if you look at both answers they both start with the word only and thats why i cant see any difference because what follows the word only would be a necessary condition

I´m in the same boat here

[timmydoeslsat]

I got this question right but as I'm reviewing im having a hard time figuring out why C is wrong ..


for E.. it would be

Interested in improving intellectuals---> not concerned with making money..

C: (because of the word only)
Interested in improving intellectuals--->not interested in making money

if you look at both answers they both start with the word only and thats why i cant see any difference because what follows the word only would be a necessary condition

"The only" is different than "only."

(1) The only people that play golf wear yellow shirts.

Play Golf ---> Yellow Shirts

(2) Only people that play golf wear yellow shirts.

Yellow Shirts ---> Play Golf

So we have this argument:

DLA ---> III
~CFG ---> RH
___________
DLA ---> RH

This is a classic structure. This argument is presuming that III brings about ~CFG.

The difference between answer choices C and E is:

(C) ~CFG ---> III

(E) III ---> ~CFG

Notice how you cannot create a chain with answer choice C.

You have this:

DLA ---> III
~CFG ---> RH
~CFG ---> III
___________
DLA ---> RH

We are left wondering about how III relates to the ~CFG.

[hovaLSAT]

could someone just give a quick rundown of how to arrive at the interpretations of the statements in C and E? I get thrown off with only vs the only sometimes....thanks!!

"The only people not interested in making money in the business world are people who are interested in improving their own intellects."

not interested in making money --> interested in improving intellect.

"Only people not concerned with making money in the business world are interested in improving their intellects."

Interested in improving intellect --> not interested in making money

[patrice.antoine]

could someone just give a quick rundown of how to arrive at the interpretations of the statements in C and E? I get thrown off with only vs the only sometimes....thanks!!

"The only people not interested in making money in the business world are people who are interested in improving their own intellects."

not interested in making money --> interested in improving intellect.

"Only people not concerned with making money in the business world are interested in improving their intellects."

Interested in improving intellect --> not interested in making money

"Only" cues that introduce the sufficient:
The Only
If Only

Note: Just replace these two phrases with "IF"

"Only" cues that introduce the necessary:
Only
Only if

Note: Just place an arrow (--->) under these cues, so you'll know that the sentence that follows is on the necessary/required chain of a conditional statement.

Hope this helps!

[ohthatpatrick]

Great response, Patrice.

I also memorize the same set of only triggers (minus the "if only", which I don't recall ever seeing or needing to make conditional).

If you're ever stuck and you've forgotten what the memorization rule was for a given conditional trigger, force yourself to come up with a sentence in the real world that uses that trigger.

For example,
"the only people who play in the NFL are men"

True statement about the world ....

Now which also seems to be a true statement about the world:
Man --> Play in NFL
or
Play in NFL --> Man

By identifying the 2nd one as the correct one, you know that whatever comes after "the only" needs to go on the left.

Here are four identical statements, just in different orders with different triggers:
- the only people who play in the NFL are men
- men are the only people who play in the NFL
- only men play in the NFL
- you can play in the NFL only if you're a man

All four of those are
Plan in NFL --> Man

[mesch04]

Can someone please explain why A and B are wrong?

[deedubbew]

"All" seems to be the only exception where "who" does not make the variable a sufficient condition. For example Clowns are people who have gone to college, translates to WTCC-->C. Are there any other possible exceptions? I cannot think of any. If so, an example would be much appreciated.

No! It's not safe to say that. I mean, it's perhaps more common that such a phrase will turn up on the sufficient side, but it's by no means guaranteed. For instance, I could say,

All clowns are people who have gone to clown college.

That would mean

clown --> went to clown college

So in this case your "who" phrase is on the necessary side. You need to look at the relationship between the categories being compared, not at the categories themselves.

[maryadkins]

"All" seems to be the only exception where "who" does not make the variable a sufficient condition. For example Clowns are people who have gone to college, translates to WTCC-->C. Are there any other possible exceptions? I cannot think of any. If so, an example would be much appreciated.

Clowns are people who went to clown college I would not translate as you did. I would still diagram that as:

C --> WTCC

The "all who" can be missing and it still reads this way. Think about it...that sentence is not telling you that everyone who went to clown college is a clown. It's telling you that if it's a clown, it went to clown college.

Don't try to memorize categorical rules around a word unless you absolutely have to because there are going to be too many exceptions to also memorize and you will make mistakes. Memorize general rules of thumb, sure, but every single time, ask yourself what it is "really saying"—what is the thing that HAS to be true when the other thing happens? Or if that doesn't work, ask what DOESN'T have to be true for the other thing to happen?

And yes, for the other poster, let me talk through the other answer choices.


(A) is wrong because we're not talking about what companies would do but why they don't do it. (A) would translate:

If people with doctorates were interested in money --> companies would hire them

Okay... but we still don't know why companies AREN'T hiring them often. Are they interested in money or not?

(B) "Some" is way too mild to get us where we need to get. Remember that "some" can mean just 2!

(D) Employment? What about money? That's what we're looking for.

(C) and (E) (the correct answer) are discussed extensively above...

Hope this helps!