Q25 - Claude: When I'm having lunch

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle-Conform (to Larissa)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: It's silly to hold it against someone if they salt their food before tasting it.
Evidence: It's reasonable to wear a sweater to a supermarket you already know will be cold. It's reasonable to never open credit card offers in the mail when you know you have no interest in a new credit card.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a weird question stem. It's asking for a principle that's involved in the two analogies Larissa offers. The issue being discussed here is whether it's reasonable to take action (salt food / wear a sweater / toss away credit card mail unopened) without having all the available information (how salty is food / how cold is supermarket / what does the credit card offer say). Since Larissa is saying that it IS reasonable to do so, she seems to invoke a principle of "If I already know how things of a certain type normally behave, it's reasonable for me to take preemptive action BEFORE I've gotten all the data."

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This seems pretty matchable to the conversation. All three examples are matters of personal preference. Larissa does NOT think we should find fault in this because people already know what the deal is with restaurant food / supermarket temperatures / credit card mail offers.

(B) Are we in professional decision-making contexts? I would stop reading there. Larissa's two analogies have nothing to do with making professional decisions.

(C) This doesn't touch on Larissa's analogies at all. If Larissa's response had simply been "That's silly: you're not hiring them to get food to the proper saltiness", then this answer could work.

(D) "generally expected norms"? This doesn't match anything, so I'd stop reading.

(E) The first half of this is matchable, but the whole "lapses of rationality" is not. Larissa is not saying, "Give them a break: they just had a brain fart." She's saying, "pre-salting the food is perfectly rational."

Takeaway/Pattern: This was a very unusual question. It most closely resembles a principle question, but it was weird that it was involved in a 2nd person's rebuttal to a 1st speaker (and both speakers' wording was involved in the answer. Also, the answer choices didn't take the usual "If PREM, then CONC" form. Instead, they were of the form of "Conclusion, because Premise."

#officialexplanation

[tzyc]

Is this question asking what principle Claude's argument behind and how Larissa responds?
The question stem is not as clear as previous...
I chose (C) thinking she thinks Claude should not make his decision based on the thing not related to the work, because sometimes people can act based on reasonable reasons from their experiences. Maybe the part "neither directly job related..." of (C) is wrong?
Thank you.

[davepak]

The question is asking for the general principle that represents Larissa's response to Claude's claim.

Answer choice C is wrong because Larissa's analogies have nothing to do with the observations of a job candidate. She is instead talking about two instances (wearing a sweater at the supermarket and never opening a credit card offer) where she follows a certain pattern of behavior based on prior knowledge of the circumstances. This is best represented by answer choice A.

[ganbayou]

I understand A is correct but what about D?
Is the problem of D talking about "people" in general instead of the specific individual?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

In (D), I read "Individuals whose behavior...does not conform to generally expected norms" and I know it's wrong. Claude and Larissa don't address what generally expected norms for behavior are. Claude doesn't LIKE their behavior, but he's not the general public.

As for the ones not yet discussed on this thread, (B) is too general and not what Larissa is saying. (E) is wrong because she isn't saying that people have lapses of rationality.

[phoebster21]

This might be a subtle distinction as to why C is wrong, but C is talking about "general conclusions" regarding a job candidate's suitability but Claude is only talking about decision making capability.

Decision making capability might be only one aspect of a job candidates suitability. The person may need to have the right personality, be punctual, be a good citizen, etc.

Further, where did either mention the concept of a pattern: "likely to be indicative of a pattern of behavior the candidate engages in." There is no mention as to behavior being a pattern. The issue is about behavior that is based on personal knowledge/preferences (e.g. I always know that no matter where, the food will never be salty enough for my liking).

[atzhang6v6]

I like A the most among the 5, but I was a little not sure about A as well at first because it does not talk about personal preference...Larissa says "suit me" and "...for me." So when I read A which says "general fact about the circumstances" I was not sure...
It's more like personal thing instead of general fact.
Was this difference ignored because the question asks "most" reasonably be interpreted?

[ShawnC998]

I like A the most among the 5, but I was a little not sure about A as well at first because it does not talk about personal preference...Larissa says "suit me" and "...for me." So when I read A which says "general fact about the circumstances" I was not sure...
It's more like personal thing instead of general fact.
Was this difference ignored because the question asks "most" reasonably be interpreted?

They are not incompatible. Larissa is talking about "personal perference in light of general fact". And the "general fact' simply means general circumstance, i.e. supermarkets are cold inside. It isn't like "everyone wears a sweater to the supermarkets".

[Laura Damone]

Agreed, ShawnC998. Larissa is making personal statements based on generalities. Nice work!