Q17 - If Suarez is not the most qualified

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:
S not most qualified → A is MQ
Therefore, MQ + ~S → A

Answer Anticipation:
With this much conditional logic, my process is going to focus on finding a match there. For quick eliminations, I'd use the complex conditional conclusion (a conditional with an "and" in the sufficient condition) to find mismatches.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Conclusion mismatch. This conclusion brings up a new term (Qiu); the conclusion of the stimulus doesn't have a new term in the conclusion. Additionally, the new term in this conclusion is meaningless - if you remove any discussion of Qiu, the argument is just as valid.

(B) Bingo:
D not low bid → R is LB
Therefore, LB + ~D → R

(C) Conclusion mismatch. The conclusion brings up the idea of "lowest bidder" which is lacking from the premises.

(D) Premise mismatch (conclusion, too, but I wouldn't have read that far). This premise connects H and E; the stimulus creates an "at least one" relationship between S and A (which disconnects them).

(E) Conclusion mismatch. The premises match, but the conclusion rules out both of the individuals from the premise, whereas the conclusion of the stimulus results in one individual being picked.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Conditional logic! Also, look for elements that will be easy to analyze and start with those. Here, a conditional conclusion with a conjunction in the sufficient condition is a feature to focus on.

#officialexplanation