darkwasp03 wrote:
What is the problem with answer option D?
Hello,
darkwasp03. I will confess to taking 2:50 to solve this question. I am much more familiar with the format of official GMAT™ questions than those that are kind of similar on the LSAT, so I treat the latter with extra caution. To answer your question, the problem with (D) is that it does not follow the same absolute line in the beginning that is subsequently taken as a premise.
Passage:
Paleomycologists... are invariably acquaintedAnswer:
All employees... can participateThe passage presents an absolute connection—by virtue of being a paleomycologist, such a scientist
will be familiar with the work of others in the field. The answer, on the other hand, presents a choice—each employee may or may not (i.e. can) participate in the company retirement plan. It is this key difference that dissuaded me from pursuing (D) any further. Meanwhile, choice (A) follows the same absolute logic presented in the passage. When a Global Airlines (GA) flight is delayed, all connecting GA flights
will be delayed, and the premise and conclusion are reversed in similar fashion. That is, we are expecting to read that
because Professor Mansour is a paleomycologist, he must be acquainted with the work of others in the field. Instead, we get that Professor M. must be a paleomycologist, a conclusion,
because he is acquainted with the work of one. Likewise, (A) indicates that Frieda must have had a delayed initial GA flight, a conclusion, since her connecting flight was delayed. We should logically expect the arrow of causality to point in the other direction.
I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew