It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 12:39

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1205

Kudos [?]: 844 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan
In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2004, 09:00
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:30) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 29 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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. Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.

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

(A)all of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or
(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
(E)None of the applicants had previously worked for either Evco or

the answer is C, could any one tell me why not A, B
thank you

Kudos [?]: 844 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 957

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 0

Location: Florida

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2004, 10:42
we need to prove that each applicant (whatever be the qualification) got the job. A is out.

Applicants have the choice of only 2 companies, they need to take the job there itself. Not an assumption...it's evident.

C-->consider: If A1 and A2 were to apply for a job in Accenture and Merrill Lynch, and if A1 gets an offer from both, but A1 joins Merrill Lynch, then Accenture is short of one person (or has an open seat). In any case, A2 left stranded, without a job
But if A1 had received an offer from Merrill Lynch and A2 from Accenture, then both A1 and A2 would have left happily with a job.

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 245

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 0

Location: INDIA

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2004, 13:25
1
KUDOS
was confused at first but goit the idea now....

lets take an ex : there were 100 guys( gals) who appeared for a job at both evco and radco...

conclusion says: all of the applicants mus have been offered = none of them is left out....

now that is only possible when vevry single guy out of the 100 guys was offered a job only at one of the placez...

50 at radco and 50 at eveco....
and all 100 have been given the jobs...

hope that helps DJ' s explanation was perfect...

HAVE fun
_________________

the whole worldmakes way for the man who knows wer he's going... good luck

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1205

Kudos [?]: 844 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2004, 10:09
Thank you DJ,

But I wonder know why is not B?

In fact, what's the difference between B and C?

if no (B), an applicant can accpet both two jobs or no job, the conclusion will not be drawn? right?

Kudos [?]: 844 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 957

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 0

Location: Florida

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2004, 17:04
chunjuwu wrote:
Thank you DJ,
But I wonder know why is not B?
In fact, what's the difference between B and C?
if no (B), an applicant can accpet both two jobs or no job, the conclusion will not be drawn? right?

I understand that is a bit confusing. Choice B says, all of the applicants got the job, but this can't be proved unless Choice C is False. If there is an overlap (1 applicant got job at both), then B would be wrong.

100 applicants were interviewed...
B: 50 got the job at Avco, 50 at Radeco.
But, if the probability of choosing candidate 2 reaches 200% (selected by both), probability of candidate 2 reaches ZERO. Thus, we can't assure B unless C is correct. And that (read C) would be the base assumption.

Sum up: if we assume C, B would become a fact (not an assumption). C would lead to B.

I hope, I didn't digress from the point

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 957

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 0

Location: Florida

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2004, 17:08
Couldn't edit the post. Where has the edit button gone?

anyways,

I understand that is a bit confusing. Choice B says, all of the applicants got the job, but this can't be proved unless Choice C is False. If there is an overlap (1 applicant got job at both), then B would be wrong.

Kudos [?]: 178 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
Posts: 445

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

Location: Cary,NC

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2004, 22:38
chunjuwu wrote:
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. Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.

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

(A)all of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or
(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
(E)None of the applicants had previously worked for either Evco or

the answer is C, could any one tell me why not A, B
thank you

I eliminated A and B both because they are out of scope. D and E too.

A is wrong because nothing is mentioned about qualification.
B is wrong because nothing in the argument talks about candidates accepting the jobs.Notice that "accepting" is not even there in the passage.

All the passage talks is about is that each company offered jobs to 1/2 of the candidates.

D and E are again out of scope.
D. The passage doesnt talk about candidates applying elsewhere
E. Nothing is mentioned about candidates having worked previously in the companies.

Does anyone agree with me ?
_________________

ash
________________________
I'm crossing the bridge.........

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10127

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2016, 12:46
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 31

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Re: In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2016, 13:15
Its a 5 sec question with answer C.
I've personally used similar flawed logic in my every day life to escape from different situations.

Sent from my SM-N910H using Tapatalk

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 31

Re: In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also   [#permalink] 17 Jul 2016, 13:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.