Last visit was: 23 Jul 2024, 11:37 It is currently 23 Jul 2024, 11:37
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Director
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Status:PhD trained. Education research, management.
Posts: 805
Own Kudos [?]: 1953 [20]
Given Kudos: 203
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15140
Own Kudos [?]: 66810 [1]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 99
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Intern
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation [#permalink]
panopticon wrote:
However, not going beyond what is reasonably expected of a police officer does not mean that they should not receive the award.

This is the part I did not understand.

According to Principle, for an officer to receive the award, he should satisfy all the 3 conditions "together" (that is my understanding):

i) Have an exemplary record
ii) Must have done something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer
iii) Saved someone’s life.

So basically, all the three conditions must satisfy.

So, according to this, A, B and E all seem to be correct
Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [3]
Given Kudos: 99
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation [#permalink]
3
Kudos
Ruchirkalra wrote:
panopticon wrote:
However, not going beyond what is reasonably expected of a police officer does not mean that they should not receive the award.

This is the part I did not understand.

According to Principle, for an officer to receive the award, he should satisfy all the 3 conditions "together" (that is my understanding):

i) Have an exemplary record
ii) Must have done something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer
iii) Saved someone’s life.

So basically, all the three conditions must satisfy.

So, according to this, A, B and E all seem to be correct

The conditions you listed are not required to be satisfied together in order for an officer to receive an award.

A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise: this is the baseline condition for being ELIGIBLE for the award; eligibility only means that the officer could, for example, be nominated, and that it would be appropriate for the officer to receive this award. However, if the officer does not satisfy some extra condition, such as the next one, that officer can still receive the award.

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: if the officer has an exemplary record, AND has gone beyond what could be reasonable expected of a police officer (by saving someones life), then such a scenario should solidify the officer's award receipt.

An officer can still receive the award if that officer satisfied the first condition but not the second. If the officer satisfies BOTH conditions, the officer should obtain the award. HOWEVER, if the officer satisfies the second condition but not the first, that officer is NOT ELIGIBLE for the award.

Thus, we must find evidence that proves that Penn is INELIGIBLE for the award... ineligibility means that Penn has not satisfied the first condition.

Try working through B and E again. They are definitely not correct.
Intern
Joined: 02 May 2019
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
panopticon wrote:
Ruchirkalra wrote:
panopticon wrote:
However, not going beyond what is reasonably expected of a police officer does not mean that they should not receive the award.

This is the part I did not understand.

According to Principle, for an officer to receive the award, he should satisfy all the 3 conditions "together" (that is my understanding):

i) Have an exemplary record
ii) Must have done something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer
iii) Saved someone’s life.

So basically, all the three conditions must satisfy.

So, according to this, A, B and E all seem to be correct

The conditions you listed are not required to be satisfied together in order for an officer to receive an award.

A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise: this is the baseline condition for being ELIGIBLE for the award; eligibility only means that the officer could, for example, be nominated, and that it would be appropriate for the officer to receive this award. However, if the officer does not satisfy some extra condition, such as the next one, that officer can still receive the award.

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: if the officer has an exemplary record, AND has gone beyond what could be reasonable expected of a police officer (by saving someones life), then such a scenario should solidify the officer's award receipt.

An officer can still receive the award if that officer satisfied the first condition but not the second. If the officer satisfies BOTH conditions, the officer should obtain the award. HOWEVER, if the officer satisfies the second condition but not the first, that officer is NOT ELIGIBLE for the award.

Thus, we must find evidence that proves that Penn is INELIGIBLE for the award... ineligibility means that Penn has not satisfied the first condition.

Try working through B and E again. They are definitely not correct.

I know this is an lsat question, but can you please explain the difference between could and should. If the phrasing were could be eligible I would wholeheartedly agree. Should to me implies a likelihood. An example is something alongs the lines of high pressure is needed for rain, since there is high pressure it should rain. Any insight would be appreciated.
Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 99
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation [#permalink]
chrisbender wrote:
I know this is an lsat question, but can you please explain the difference between could and should. If the phrasing were could be eligible I would wholeheartedly agree. Should to me implies a likelihood. An example is something alongs the lines of high pressure is needed for rain, since there is high pressure it should rain. Any insight would be appreciated.

In reference to your example: just because high pressure is needed for rain, that does not mean that it SHOULD rain given that there is high pressure. By that same logic, it COULD rain if there is high pressure.

In any case, I think focusing on could vs should is not required for this question. If you change all of the "shoulds" for "wills", you will see consistency across the entire question. For example, "An officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should will receive the award if the act saved someone’s life".

Conclusion: Officer Franklin should will receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should will not. Whether its "could" "should" "might" or "will", the consistent use of one word across the question implies that such a scenario exists given that the conditions, as previously stated, are satisfied.
Intern
Joined: 02 May 2019
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation [#permalink]
panopticon wrote:
chrisbender wrote:
I know this is an lsat question, but can you please explain the difference between could and should. If the phrasing were could be eligible I would wholeheartedly agree. Should to me implies a likelihood. An example is something alongs the lines of high pressure is needed for rain, since there is high pressure it should rain. Any insight would be appreciated.

In reference to your example: just because high pressure is needed for rain, that does not mean that it SHOULD rain given that there is high pressure. By that same logic, it COULD rain if there is high pressure.

In any case, I think focusing on could vs should is not required for this question. If you change all of the "shoulds" for "wills", you will see consistency across the entire question. For example, "An officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should will receive the award if the act saved someone’s life".

Conclusion: Officer Franklin should will receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should will not. Whether its "could" "should" "might" or "will", the consistent use of one word across the question implies that such a scenario exists given that the conditions, as previously stated, are satisfied.

Thank you for the reply. I understood the point you made in how you got to A. I think your advice is very good especially on test day. Swap out could against should and see if the solution still holds. Again thank you for the reply.
Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 99
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation [#permalink]
chrisbender wrote:
panopticon wrote:
chrisbender wrote:
I know this is an lsat question, but can you please explain the difference between could and should. If the phrasing were could be eligible I would wholeheartedly agree. Should to me implies a likelihood. An example is something alongs the lines of high pressure is needed for rain, since there is high pressure it should rain. Any insight would be appreciated.

In reference to your example: just because high pressure is needed for rain, that does not mean that it SHOULD rain given that there is high pressure. By that same logic, it COULD rain if there is high pressure.

In any case, I think focusing on could vs should is not required for this question. If you change all of the "shoulds" for "wills", you will see consistency across the entire question. For example, "An officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should will receive the award if the act saved someone’s life".

Conclusion: Officer Franklin should will receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should will not. Whether its "could" "should" "might" or "will", the consistent use of one word across the question implies that such a scenario exists given that the conditions, as previously stated, are satisfied.

Thank you for the reply. I understood the point you made in how you got to A. I think your advice is very good especially on test day. Swap out could against should and see if the solution still holds. Again thank you for the reply.

I wouldn't recommend arbitrarily swapping out words as a strategy on test day. This is quite a difficult question (it took me over 2 minutes to solve). It may be more useful to truly focus on the details of what is being asked prior to even looking at the answer choices. I'm not sure at what stage you're at in your studies, but if this is the type of question where you find you need to create some sort of word picking strategy in order to eliminate wrong answers, I would recommend going back to easier questions and taking well over the required time limit to solve them. In my opinion, the key to solving critical reasoning questions is to read slowly yet efficiently to make sure that you fully understand the facts stated in the passage.
Intern
Joined: 17 Aug 2020
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 86
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation [#permalink]
I have a major problem with this question, and here is why.

There are three boxes that an officer needs to tick, as it were, to receive a Mayor’s Commendation.
1. eligibility
2. whether he went beyond “what could reasonably expected of a police officer”
3. whether the act saved someone’s life

As others did, I quickly narrowed the list down to A and B.
Now, the major problem that I have with A and the reason that I cannot choose A over B are this.
How do we know that Franklin and Penn actually saved a child’s life?

The wording of A is such that we cannot ascertain that.
A says, “in saving a child, F and P risked their lives.” OK, but did they, in end, save the child’s life?
The situation may have turned out to be:
In saving a child from drowning, F and P risked their lives, but to no avail, and in the end, failed to save the child’s life.
We just cannot know whether they succeeded in saving the child’s life.

“In doing something” and “having done something”, these are two different things. "In doing something" only means, in my opinion, the simultaneity to the act in the main clause, but not the completion of the act.

Let’s consider an analogous example to make this point clear.
The condition to be met for graduation: a student has written an essay.
In writing an essay, John had a brilliant idea for a business, so John quit school and became an entrepreneur. → OK, so in the end, John did not write an essay. John did engage in the act of writing an essay, but did not complete the essay.

Franklin and Penn did engage in the act of saving a child'd life, but that is as far as A tells.
This is a major sticking point in seeing A as the right answer.

Originally posted by masakiyada on 09 Feb 2022, 01:30.
Last edited by masakiyada on 09 Feb 2022, 23:54, edited 3 times in total.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15140
Own Kudos [?]: 66810 [1]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation [#permalink]
1
Kudos
I have a major problem with this question, and here is why.

There are three boxes that an officer needs to tick, as it were, to receive a Mayor’s Commendation.
1. eligibility
2. whether he went beyond “what could reasonably expected of a police officer”
3. whether the act saved someone’s life

As others did so, I quickly narrowed the list down to A and B.
Now, the major problem that I have with A and the reason that I cannot choose A over B are this.
How do we know that Franklin and Penn actually saved a child’s life?

The wording of A is such that we cannot ascertain that.
A says, “in saving a child, F and P risked their lives.” OK, but did they, in end, save the child’s life?
The situation may have turned out to be:
In saving a child from drowning, F and P risked their lives, but to no avail, and in the end, failed to save the child’s life.
We just cannot know whether they succeeded in saving the child’s life.

“In doing something” and “having done something”, these are two different things.

Let’s consider an analogous example to make this point clear.
The eligibility condition to be met for graduation: a student has written an essay.
In writing an essay, John had a brilliant idea for a business, so John quit school and became an entrepreneur. → OK, so in the end, John did not write an essay. John did engage in the act of writing an essay, but did not complete the essay.

Franklin and Penn did engaged in the act of saving a child'd life, but that is as far as A tells.
This is a major sticking point in seeing A as the right answer.

Option (A) says "In saving a child from drowning this year,"
This means "while saving a child from drowning". This implies that they saved the child.
Had they been unable to save the child, it would have said "in trying to save a child from drowning..."

Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2015
Posts: 52
Own Kudos [?]: 29 [0]
Given Kudos: 85
Location: India
GPA: 2.99
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayors Commendation [#permalink]
Here is how I processed this principle:

Eligibility 1:exemplary record
Eligibility 2:exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer
Eligibility 3:act saved someone’s lif

It has to go in the order 1 -> 2 -> 3.
Except for A, all options have some distorted form of this order. Hope it helps!
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17525
Own Kudos [?]: 869 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayors Commendation [#permalink]
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.
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayors Commendation [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6991 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts