Hovkial wrote:
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise; an officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should receive the award if the act saved someone’s life.
Conclusion: Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should not.
From which one of the following sets of facts can the conclusion be properly drawn using the principle?
(A) In saving a child from drowning this year, Franklin and Penn both risked their lives beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Franklin has an exemplary record but Penn does not.
(B) Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records, and each officer saved a child from drowning earlier this year. However, in doing so, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer; Penn did not.
(C) Neither Franklin nor Penn has an exemplary record. But, in saving the life of an accident victim, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. In the only case in which Penn saved someone’s life this year, Penn was merely doing what could be reasonably expected of an officer under the circumstances.
(D) At least once this year, Franklin has saved a person’s life in such a way as to exceed what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Penn has not saved anyone’s life this year.
(E) Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records. On several occasions this year Franklin has saved people’s lives, and on many occasions this year Franklin has exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. On no occasions this year has Penn saved a person’s life or exceeded what could be reasonably expected of an officer.
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise;
Eligibility for award - exemplary record, not otherwise.
So exemplary record is necessary (because the principle clearly states "not otherwise") and sufficient to be eligible.
An eligible officer who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should receive the award if the act saved someone’s life.
This is one reason why an officer should be given the award. There could be other ways an eligible officer could get the award.
(A) In saving a child from drowning this year, Franklin and Penn both risked their lives beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Franklin has an exemplary record but Penn does not.
Franklin has an exemplary record - eligible
Franklin risked his life beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer
Franklin should get the award.
Penn does not have an exemplary record - not eligible
Penn should NOT get the award.
Conclusion drawn properly.
(B) Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records, and each officer saved a child from drowning earlier this year. However, in doing so, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer; Penn did not.
Franklin has an exemplary record - eligible
Franklin risked his life beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer
Franklin should get the award.
Penn has an exemplary record - eligible
Penn did not go beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer - award???
We CANNOT say that Penn SHOULD NOT get the award. May be he did something else because of which he should get the award, we don't know.
The principle can only help us say that Franklin should get the award. The principle cannot help us decide whether Penn should get it or not.
Conclusion not drawn properly.
Answer (A)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep