GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Nov 2019, 14:33

Close

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
Your Progress

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Status: PhD-trained. Education, Research, Teaching, Training, Consulting and Advisory Services
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Posts: 406
CAT Tests
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2019, 10:38
4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

28% (02:40) correct 72% (02:43) wrong based on 206 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9788
Location: Pune, India
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2019, 03:49
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
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 315
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2019, 11:12
I don't know. To me, both A& B sounds reasonable

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 May 2019
Posts: 50
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2019, 14:08
I agree that it is a very tough call between a and b. I would go b, because with a Penn is is not even eligible.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 16
Location: Canada
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2019, 07:59
1- in order to be eligible, an officer must have an exemplary record.

2- an eligible officer who has gone beyond what could be reasonably expected of this officer should then receive the award. HOWEVER, even if an eligible officer is not proven to have gone beyond their duties at some point in the past year, they may still receive the award. Exceeding expectations only confirms this.

3- Franklin should receive it, but Penn should not.

We must find evidence that proves Franklin eligible and Penn Ineligible for the award.


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.
They both went beyond their duties. However, Franklin is eligible, since he has an exemplary record. Penn is 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.
Both Franklin and Penn are eligible, since they have exemplary records. Thus, whatever duties they engage in beyond their requirements as police officers only confirms that they should receive the award. However, not going beyond what is reasonably expected of a police officer does not mean that they should not receive the award. Since both officers are eligible, this answer gives us no reason to believe that Penn should not receive it... only that Franklin should receive it.


(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.
Both officers are ineligible. Thus, however they go beyond what is expected of them has no bearing on their eligibility to receive the award.

(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.
This evidence does not tell us whether both officers are eligible for the award or not.

(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.
Same as D
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jul 2018
Posts: 8
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2019, 00:01
What is wrong with E ??...I believe option E tells about the eligibility of both the officers and in addition tells that Franklin has saved someone's life whereas Penn has not!!

Really confused between A&E!!
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Posts: 11
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2019, 00:16
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 :-o
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 16
Location: Canada
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2019, 05:51
3
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 :-o


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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 May 2019
Posts: 50
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2019, 10:24
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 :-o


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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 16
Location: Canada
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2019, 16:46
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 May 2019
Posts: 50
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2019, 07:15
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Posts: 16
Location: Canada
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2019, 07:37
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 103
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Nov 2019, 23:38
Hi Experts,

I have a question on A.

In the passage, it states that "A police officer is eligible for a Mayor???s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record".

"the officer has an exemplary record" is a sufficient condition for being eligible for the award, not a necessary one.

So, how can A is correct?

Even though the Penn does not have an exemplary record , he can be eligible by some other way; the passage doesn't clearly state that having an exemplary record is the only way to be eligible.

Please explain.
Thank you.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Apr 2019
Posts: 21
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2019, 00:59
Requesting experts feedback: Bunuel gmat1393 GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo nightblade354 daagh VeritasKarishma

I don't think A is the answer here... I'm selecting B as my selection. Here's my reasoning:

Stimulus: Officers are eligible for commendation if they have exemplary record --- i
Eligible officer's act should be beyond reasonable expectation an the same act should involve saving somebody's life -- ii

note here: saving life is separate from eligibility. Exemplary record makes one eligible, and among those eligible candidates those who have saved life by going beyond what is expected should receive the commendation.

Conclusion : F should receive award and P shouldn't. Takeaway here is: P has exemplary record and eligible but he shouldn't receive award as he either didn't save life or save life in a way that would be considered beyond expectation. But P should have exemplary record.

A - F and P both saved life . F has exmp. record and P doesn't. (Here, P is not eligible in the first place. The conclusion states that P shouldn't, which means P is eligible but shouldn't get commendation.) Incorrect as per above.

B - Both F and P have exemplary record (makes them eligible). Both saved drowning child (saved life). Both look good candidates. But then it says, F went beyond what could be expected and P didn't . -- Looks like the right answer

C - Both did not have exemplary records (makes them ineligible). Both saved lives (meets the criteria for award but lacks the first basic criteria, i.e. do not have exemplary records.) F went beyond expectation and P didn't is secondary now. per the stimulus they probably will get a reward other than the commendation for their deed -- Incorrect

D - F has saved life going beyond expectation & P hasn't saved any life. The option doesn't talk about these officers' eligibility (both need to have exemplary records. ) -- Incorrect

E - Both have exemplary record (fine). F has saved lives on several occasions and gone beyond expectation (the choice states these two things separately). Its clear on the stem that the act of going beyond expectation should be the act of saving life. Here, F saving lives and F exceeding expectations seem to be disconnected. So can be eliminated right here.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 21 Feb 2017
Posts: 49
Re: Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2019, 23:36
saurabh4098 wrote:
What is wrong with E ??...I believe option E tells about the eligibility of both the officers and in addition tells that Franklin has saved someone's life whereas Penn has not!!

Really confused between A&E!!


Conclusion to prove: Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should not.

Condition 1. given in the statement: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise

1. A tells us F has an exemplary record but P doesn't; hence F is eligible for Mayors Commendation as per the condition given in the statement.

2. E tells us both F & P have exemplary records; hence both F & P are eligible. Doesn't prove the conclusion of F getting the medal and P not.

The other conditions of saving someones life and exceeding what is reasonably expected of the officer dont come into question since the first condition isn't satisfied by answer choice E.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 21 Feb 2017
Posts: 49
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2019, 23:49
deeeuce wrote:
Requesting experts feedback: Bunuel gmat1393 GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo nightblade354 daagh VeritasKarishma

I don't think A is the answer here... I'm selecting B as my selection. Here's my reasoning:

Stimulus: Officers are eligible for commendation if they have exemplary record --- i
Eligible officer's act should be beyond reasonable expectation an the same act should involve saving somebody's life -- ii

note here: saving life is separate from eligibility. Exemplary record makes one eligible, and among those eligible candidates those who have saved life by going beyond what is expected should receive the commendation.

Conclusion : F should receive award and P shouldn't. Takeaway here is: P has exemplary record and eligible but he shouldn't receive award as he either didn't save life or save life in a way that would be considered beyond expectation. But P should have exemplary record.

A - F and P both saved life . F has exmp. record and P doesn't. (Here, P is not eligible in the first place. The conclusion states that P shouldn't, which means P is eligible but shouldn't get commendation.) Incorrect as per above.

B - Both F and P have exemplary record (makes them eligible). Both saved drowning child (saved life). Both look good candidates. But then it says, F went beyond what could be expected and P didn't . -- Looks like the right answer

C - Both did not have exemplary records (makes them ineligible). Both saved lives (meets the criteria for award but lacks the first basic criteria, i.e. do not have exemplary records.) F went beyond expectation and P didn't is secondary now. per the stimulus they probably will get a reward other than the commendation for their deed -- Incorrect

D - F has saved life going beyond expectation & P hasn't saved any life. The option doesn't talk about these officers' eligibility (both need to have exemplary records. ) -- Incorrect

E - Both have exemplary record (fine). F has saved lives on several occasions and gone beyond expectation (the choice states these two things separately). Its clear on the stem that the act of going beyond expectation should be the act of saving life. Here, F saving lives and F exceeding expectations seem to be disconnected. So can be eliminated right here.


Refer my answer to saurabh4098 as to why A>E; the same logic applies to A>B

Hope it helps! Let me know if you have any further queries.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Apr 2019
Posts: 21
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2019, 07:04
Kritisood wrote:
saurabh4098 wrote:
What is wrong with E ??...I believe option E tells about the eligibility of both the officers and in addition tells that Franklin has saved someone's life whereas Penn has not!!

Really confused between A&E!!


Conclusion to prove: Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should not.

Condition 1. given in the statement: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise

1. A tells us F has an exemplary record but P doesn't; hence F is eligible for Mayors Commendation as per the condition given in the statement.

2. E tells us both F & P have exemplary records; hence both F & P are eligible. Doesn't prove the conclusion of F getting the medal and P not.

The other conditions of saving someones life and exceeding what is reasonably expected of the officer dont come into question since the first condition isn't satisfied by answer choice E.


Kritisood
Agree that E doesn't address the condition (for P) of saving life or going beyond expectations.
However, between A and B, don't you think when the conclusion statement reads "F should receive the medal and P shouldn't", it means that among two eligible candidates the one who meets some other criteria should get it and the one who doesn't shouldn't? If, P were not eligible (missed out any of the condition), then there would be no point in saying he shouldn't because the condition is already laid out that only officers with exemplary records get commendation.

Doesn't it sound like below:
only those students who pass their semester are eligible for award. ---- (i)
An eligible student who has had remarkable extracurricular activities should receive the aware only if the extracurricular activity involves an act of winning intra-campus competitive sport. --- (ii)

Lets consider Sam, Harry, and Daniel. Sam and Harry passed the semester but Daniel didn't (he is out of the race already). Is there any point in saying Daniel shouldn't receive award. He is not even considered in the first place. Rather it may make sense saying Between Sam and Harry (both of who passed the semester), Sam won intra campus tournament, Harry just won internal basketball trophy. Hence, Sam should get it and Harry shouldn't. This is sounding more logical to me.

I feel same is the case with option A in the original example.

Open for feedback.

Thanks
GMAT Club Bot
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation   [#permalink] 15 Nov 2019, 07:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne