Committee member: We should not vote to put at the top of the military’s chain of command an individual whose history of excessive drinking is such that that person would be barred from commanding a missile wing, a bomber squadron, or a contingent of fighter jets. Leadership must be established from the top down.
The committee member’s argument conforms most closely to which one of the following principles?
(A) No one who would be barred from important jobs in an organization should lead that organization.
(B) Whoever leads an organization must have served at every level in the organization.
(C) Whoever leads an organization must be qualified to hold each important job in the organization.
(D) No one who drinks excessively should hold a leadership position any where along the military’s chain of command.
(E) No one who cannot command a missile wing should be at the top of the military’s chain of command.

OA to come.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

I'm going to go with A on this one, if only through POE.



Committee member: We should not vote to put at the top of the military’s chain of command an individual whose history of excessive drinking is such that that person would be barred from commanding a missile wing, a bomber squadron, or a contingent of fighter jets. Leadership must be established from the top down.

Committee member's conclusion: A person who would be barred from commanding a missile wing, a bomber squadron, or a contingent of fighter jets should not be put at the top of the military organization/chain of command.


The committee member’s argument conforms most closely to which one of the following principles?
(A) No one who would be barred from important jobs in an organization should lead that organization.

- Yup, this is the correct answer. It can be reasonably inferred that commanding a missile wing, a bomber squadron or a contingent of fighter jets are important jobs in the military. Someone who is barred from holding these important jobs should not lead the military. This conforms to the committee member's conclusion.

(B) Whoever leads an organization must have served at every level in the organization.

- Nope. Completely out of context.

(C) Whoever leads an organization must be qualified to hold each important job in the organization.

- The argument does not deal at all with qualifications. Someone may possess all the required qualifications, but if they are a drunkard and are barred from holding the important jobs in spite of their qualifications, the committee member argues that such a person should not be put as the leader.

(D) No one who drinks excessively should hold a leadership position any where along the military’s chain of command.

- Too extreme. The argument only pertains to the very top of the chain of command, not anywhere along the chain of command.

(E) No one who cannot command a missile wing should be at the top of the military’s chain of command.

- Nope. Too restrictive - it only talks about 1 of the 3 positions mentioned by the committee member. Also, the issue is not whether the person can or cannot command a missile wing; the issue is rather whether that person is barred from commanding. There's a subtle but significant difference between the 2.

close one between A and D but since A is more generic version, i am inclined to go with that.

I chose A.

I thought about C for a few seconds, but C says that anyone who drinks excessively shouldn't hold any leadership position. The passage gives specific examples of the positions that someone who drinks excessively shouldn't hold. I chose A because anyone who could be banned from any of the positions the passage points would probably be banned for excessive drinking.

I think the conclusion is the last statement here. "Leadership must be established from the top down." which means that leadership must be displayed at all levels starting from the top management being exemplary. So that is what we should looking to match.

If we look at a different conclusion C is the option which looks best to me.

Any comments? Opinions welcome.

I used POE to reach to A.

Must say that going around the choices once with POE, I was left with A & C. The reason to choose A was because C says that the person should be "QUALIFIED" to hold each imp job. The statement says nothing about qualification.

(A) No one who would be barred from important jobs in an organization should lead that organization.

(C) Whoever leads an organization must be qualified to hold each important job in the organization.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Committee member: We should not vote to put at the top of the military’s chain of command an individual whose history of excessive drinking is such that that person would be barred from commanding a missile wing, a bomber squadron, or a contingent of fighter jets. Leadership must be established from the top down.
The committee member’s argument conforms most closely to which one of the following principles?
(A) No one who would be barred from important jobs in an organization should lead that organization.
criteria of barring is generic
(B) Whoever leads an organization must have served at every level in the organization.
Argument is not based on the fact that he should serve at all level
(C) Whoever leads an organization must be qualified to hold each important job in the organization.
Argument is not talking of qualification. Its talking abt qualities
(D) No one who drinks excessively should hold a leadership position any where along the military’s chain of command.
This is what I feel is good. He says set an example and no drinker in chain should hold poisition
(E) No one who cannot command a missile wing should be at the top of the military’s chain of command.
command a missile is cited as a effect of drinking

Between A and D IMO D
_________________

If you like my post, consider giving me some KUDOS !!!!! Like you I need them

i dont think we can say what is an "important job"?

commanding a missile wing, a bomber squadron, or a contingent of fighter jets -- are these "imp jobs"? we don't know from the stimulus --- these could be totally menial jobs as well... i don't know...

though i dont like it i'll go with E

Can we have the OA? Can moderators or our helping instructors chime in and explain the answer
_________________

If you like my post, consider giving me some KUDOS !!!!! Like you I need them

noburu.....OA please??? I have been waiting eagerly for it.