A companys policy requires every employee who is promoted to manager

Question

A company’s policy requires every employee who is promoted to manager to have completed both the leadership program and the company’s ethics training. However, completing both programs does not necessarily result in a promotion. Did Rahul complete the leadership program?

(1) Rahul was promoted to manager last month.
(2) Everyone who completed the leadership program also completed the company’s ethics training, and Rahul completed the ethics training last month.

LeafBadge · Answer

Shouldn't it be A? 
From Statement 2 we can only infer L -> E which isn't logically equal to E -> L

aeforx · Answer

I can understand that from (1), we can infer that Rahul completed the leadership program.
But for (2), in my opinion, it just means that if someone who completed the leadership program, we can know that this person also finished the company's ethics training, conversely, we can not infer from someone who completed the company's ethics training to completing the leadership program, am I right?

MarkGMATMentor · Answer

When you're given a statement of  conditional logic , you can't assume that the reverse direction (or converse) is true.

C onditional logic  refers to a statement that can be written in "If-then" form, or diagrammed with an arrow.

The prompt gives us a statement that can be written in if-then form and diagrammed:

If an employee is promoted to manager, then they must have completed both leadership and ethics training:
P --> L & E

However, as the prompt tells us, the reverse direction, also known as the converse (L & E --> P) may or may not hold.  Note that this doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. We can never assume that the converse is true unless we're told explicitly that it is.

Statement 1: 
Rahul was promoted to manager, so he fits the conditional statement perfectly. He must have completed both leadership and ethics.  Sufficient.

Statement 2: 
If an employee completed the leadership program, then they completed the ethics training:
L --> E

Rahul completed the ethics training. Though the statement doesn't say it explicitly, we can't assume that the converse (E --> L) is true. Thus, Rahul may or may not have completed the leadership program.  Insufficient.   The answer is A.

On conditional logic questions, make sure that you read the question carefully and don't make assumptions. In particular, don't assume that the reverse direction (or converse) is true unless stated.

egmat · Answer

Hi aeforx,

Yes, you've got it exactly right, and this is the whole key to why Statement  (2)  fails.

Statement  (2)  gives you two facts:
-  Leadership → Ethics  (everyone who did leadership also did ethics)
- Rahul completed  ethics .

You're correct that "Leadership → Ethics" does  not  run backwards. Knowing someone finished ethics tells you nothing about whether they did leadership - the arrow only points one way. This is the classic converse trap, and you spotted it.

Here's the quick two-case check that makes it undeniable. Both scenarios obey Statement  (2)  (everyone who did leadership did ethics, and Rahul did ethics):

-  Case 1:  Rahul did leadership  and  ethics - answer to the question is  YES .
-  Case 2:  Rahul did ethics but  skipped  leadership - answer is  NO .

Same statement, two different answers -  not sufficient . So  (2)  alone can't settle it, just as you reasoned.

Compare that with Statement  (1) : the policy says every manager must have completed  both  programs, and Rahul  was  promoted to manager. That forces a definite  YES  - no scenario escapes it - so  (1)  alone is  sufficient . That's why the answer is  A .

One habit to carry forward: whenever a statement gives you "A → B," always ask whether the question is really testing "B → A." If it is, and the reverse isn't guaranteed, you can almost always build a case that breaks sufficiency - exactly what you did here.

Answer: A

A companys policy requires every employee who is promoted to manager

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Data Sufficiency (DS) Questions

A companys policy requires every employee who is promoted to manager

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards