Q22 - "This company will not be training..."

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a weaken question.

We have 400 trained pilots on our waiting list seeking employment
+
Five other companies have about the same number on their waiting lists
+
Projected requirement of each company is for not more than 100 additional pilots per company
→
There will be no shortage of personnel

The first gap I saw was between talking about "pilots" in the narrow sense and talking about "personnel" in the broad sense. Let's say that we have enough pilots to fill all the spots - does that mean that we have enough personnel? It wouldn't seem so as personnel could include anybody from pilots, to flight attendants, to custodians, etc. In addition, who's to say that these pilots are seeking pilot jobs? Sure, to wonder this would be a stretch but I've seen weirder assumptions on the LSAT than this one. Just because they trained as pilots doesn't mean they want to be pilots - they are just "seeking employment," remember?

(A) Didn't see that one coming! However, it makes sense and it relates to the premises beautifully! If these trained pilots are generally on the waiting list for all the major companies (six in total), then this would seriously weaken the conclusion. Why? Because every company needs 100 pilots. If every company needs 100 pilots and the same pilots are on each companies' waiting lists, this would actually equate to a ~200 pilot shortage; there are 600 spots for 400 pilots and the author is saying that "there will be no shortage in personnel?" Nonsense.

(B) We don't care about pilot training! We want to find something relating to how many pilots vs. openings there are!

(C) So what if theres an age imbalance? Will there be or won't there eve a shortage of personnel?!

(D) This actually strengthens the argument. If the companies project X number of pilots needed and they already did take into account the upswing in pilots they will need, this would strengthen the idea that there won't be a shortage of personnel. Why? Because there won't be surprises. In other words, the aviation industry knows very well that more pilots will be needed and so they adjust their projections to account for that. If anything, they are over prepared and will possibly have an overflow of pilots.

(E) If there are no presumptions of subsequent employment then this would seem to imply that they don't need them to be employed. In addition, "some" is rather weak and I'd be hard-pressed to make a stretch to make this answer choice work.

[mwalton444]

The meaning of (A) is ambiguous.

It says that "most of the trained pilots who are on a waiting list for a job are on (one of?, some of?, most of?, all of?) the waiting lists of all the major companies."

I interpreted this as saying that most of the trained pilots are on the waiting lists of all the major companies (as opposed to the miner companies, which the passage implied exists). That would not cast any doubt on the accuracy of the conclusion and would be irrelevant information.

Consider the difference in these two statements:

1) They are on all the waiting lists of all the major companies. (This is what the AC meant to say)

vs.

2) They are on the waiting lists of all the major companies. (This is what the AC actually said)

Statement (2) could mean that most pilots are on at least one of the waiting lists. Or, that most of the pilots are on all of the waiting lists. It could mean either one. And if you interpret it the first way, which is more reasonable since it is the more inclusive interpretation, you would cross this answer off as I did.

Is this a fair interpretation of why I think this answer choice is flawed?

Thanks.

[tommywallach]

I'm afraid your second interpretation doesn't make sense. Each company only has a single waiting list, so there's no need for the "all the waiting lists" read. The plural of lists refers to the SINGLE list of each company. Put more simply, the only legitimate read of this is that the pilots are on the waiting list of every major company, leading to the duplication effect previously described.

-t