In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied

Question

In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at Radeco，and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants cants. Therefore，every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.

The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions about these job applicants?

(A) All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.

(B) All of the applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco.

(C) None of the applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco.

(D) None of the applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco.

(E) None of the applicants had perviously worked for either Evco or Radeco.

ID 16802

GMATbuster92 · Answer

Assumption lies in the fact that there is no overlap between the job offers of both companies , then only all people will have 1 job offer.
so ans is C

SMITAMECHGIRL00 · Answer

Why none? why is B wrong? Please explain the argument and POE steps.

Yashvi2303 · Answer

B is an incorrect answer because we cannot be sure of it and probabilities can't be defined well but in option C it is assumed by the author that he must have taken job in either of the job places because everyone got a job.  every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.

svasan05 · Answer

Pre-thinking:

Let us assume 100 people applied for a job in 1990 at Evco. We are told each of these 100 also applied to Radeco. We are also told each of Evco and Radeco gave job offers to exactly 50 out of these 100. These could be any 50, for example, applicants 1-50 could have got a job offer from both and 50-100 from neither. Or, maybe 1-50 got an offer from Evco whereas 31-80 got an offer from Radeco. Similarly, a number of such scenarios are possible.

Based on the above, the conclusion is drawn that all of 1-100 got a job offer. This is possible, for instance, when 1-50 get an offer from Evco and 51-100 get an offer from Radeco. Else, maybe 1-20 and 71-100 got an offer from Evco whereas 21-70 got an offer from Radeco. We can see that in each such scenario, no applicant can get an offer from  both  since each of Evco and Radeco only made 50 job offers.

Let us examine the answer options.

(A) All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.  Qualification is irrelevant to the conclusion. Eliminate.

(B) All of the applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco.  Job acceptance by the candidates is irrelevant to the conclusion - we are only concerned with job offers. Eliminate.

(C) None of the applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco.  Correct answer and consistent with out pre-thinking.

(D) None of the applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco.  Other job applications are irrelevant to the conclusion. Eliminate.

(E) None of the applicants had perviously worked for either Evco or Radeco.  Previous work is irrelevant to the conclusion. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

gmatpro15 · Answer

(A) All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco. Qualification is irrelevant to the conclusion. Eliminate.

(B) All of the applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco. Job acceptance by the candidates is irrelevant to the conclusion - we are only concerned with job offers. Eliminate.

(C) None of the applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco. Correct answer and consistent with out pre-thinking.

(D) None of the applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco. Other job applications are irrelevant to the conclusion. Eliminate.

(E) None of the applicants had perviously worked for either Evco or Radeco. Previous work is irrelevant to the conclusion. Eliminate.

BottomJee · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

What must be true in order for the stated premises to justify the conclusion that each person who applied for jobs at both Evco and Radeco was offered at least one job?  The argument is that Evco offered jobs to 50% of the people who applied for jobs at both companies, and so did Radeco; and since ​50% + 50% = 100%, it follows that 100% of the applicants were each offered at least one job. But this reasoning fails if the two 50%s might have overlapped by including some of the same people. For example, suppose there were four applicants total, of whom one was offered a job only at Evco, one was offered a job only at Radeco, one was offered a job at each company, and one received no job offer. Then even though Evco offered jobs to 50% (two out of four) of the applicants, and so did Radeco, only 75% (three out of four) of the applicants were offered jobs. Thus, the argument requires the assumption that no one was offered a job at both companies.

The argument is only about whether the applicants were offered jobs, not about how well qualified they were. 
 If true, this would entail the argument's conclusion. However, the conclusion could also be true even if some applicants rejected the jobs they were offered. 
  Correct.  As explained above, the argument requires the assumption that there was no overlap between the people offered jobs at Evco and those offered jobs at Radeco. 
 If anything, this would weaken the argument by eliminating the possibility that some or all of the applicants were offered jobs at companies other than Evco and Radeco. 
 The argument is only about whether the applicants were offered jobs, not about where they had previously worked.

The correct answer is C.

_blossom_s · Answer

From this statement " Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990 " was a hook, which meant everyone got the job who applied. So from this statement,  Option C  - would be an appropriate answer.

Khusheesoni · Answer

B is wrong since we only have information about the offers from the company TO the candidates and not about their acceptance. someone being offered a job doesn't gurantee the acceptance. hence we do not have sufficient data to say B is correct.

HarshaBujji · Answer

Conclusion : Every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.

In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at Radeco,and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants.

If both offer to same persons then everyone will not be offered a job. Hence IMO C

Azakura16 · Answer

Premise: In 1990, all of the people who applied for a job at one company also applied for a job at the other.
Premise: Each company offered a position to 1⁄2 of the applicants.
Conclusion: All applicants must have been offered a position in 1990.

There’s a gap between the premises and the conclusion that needs to be resolved by one of the answer choices.

A. “Offered a job” doesn’t necessarily mean “well-qualified.” This is irrelevant.
B. “Offered a job” doesn’t mean that they accepted. Irrelevant.
C. If the same, or any portion, of the 50% of applicants that were offered a job by Evco were also offered a job by Radeco, then some people would have received two offers and some people would have received zero offers. This is a necessary assumption.
D. Not discussed by the prompt, so not relevant.
E. Also not discussed. Also not relevant.

In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards