Conscientiousness is high on most firms’ list of traits they want in

Question

Conscientiousness is high on most firms’ list of traits they want in employees. Yet a recent study found that laid-off conscientious individuals are less likely to find jobs within five months than are their peers who shirked their workplace responsibilities.

Each of the following, if true, helps to resolve the apparent paradox above EXCEPT:

Each of the following, if true, helps to resolve the apparent paradox above EXCEPT:

(A) People who shirk their workplace responsibilities are less likely to keep the jobs they have, so there are more of them looking for jobs.
(B) Conscientious people tend to have a greater than average concern with finding the job most suited to their interests and abilities.
(C) Resentment about having been laid off in spite of their conscientiousness leads some people to perform poorly in interviews.
(D) People who are inclined to shirk their workplace responsibilities are more likely to exaggerate their credentials, leading prospective employers to believe them to be highly qualified.
(E) Finding a job is less urgent for the conscientious because they tend to have larger savings.

AshutoshB · Answer

(A) People who shirk their workplace responsibilities are less likely to keep the jobs they have, so there are more of them looking for jobs.   IMHO wud be the correct answer as it directly opposes the conclusion for which we have to find the resolution

(B) Conscientious people tend to have a greater than average concern with finding the job most suited to their interests and abilities.  WRONG: resolving the paradox by giving interests and abilities as the reason why Cons. people take more time to find the job

(C) Resentment about having been laid off in spite of their conscientiousness leads some people to perform poorly in interviews.  WRONG: resolving the paradox 
 
(D) People who are inclined to shirk their workplace responsibilities are more likely to exaggerate their credentials, leading prospective employers to believe them to be highly qualified.  WRONG: resolving the paradox by giving exaggeration of cred.as the reason why Shirk people get the job easily 
 
(E) Finding a job is less urgent for the conscientious because they tend to have larger savings.  WRONG: resolving the paradox

yash312 · Answer

IMO A

as all other option provide a valid reason for the discrepancy.

A: it states that there are more shriek employees and hence there are more of them looking for job, but it does not provide the reason of why They are able to get jobs...Because large size automatically itself does not gurantee the job

Skywalker18 · Answer

Conscientiousness is high on most firms’ list of traits they want in employees. Yet a recent study found that laid-off conscientious individuals are less likely to find jobs within five months than are their peers who shirked their workplace responsibilities.

Each of the following, if true, helps to resolve the apparent paradox above EXCEPT:

Type-paradox except
Boil it down- Yet a recent study found that laid-off conscientious individuals are less likely to find jobs within five months than are their peers who shirked their workplace responsibilities.

(A) People who shirk their workplace responsibilities are less likely to keep the jobs they have, so there are more of them looking for jobs.- Correct; there are more shirkers out there looking for jobs- This DOES NOT explain the paradox;

(B) Conscientious people tend to have a greater than average concern with finding the job most suited to their interests and abilities.- incorrect; explains the paradox - Conscientious people are fussy about choosing the job best suited for them
(C) Resentment about having been laid off in spite of their conscientiousness leads some people to perform poorly in interviews. - incorrect; explains the paradox - poor interview performance
(D) People who are inclined to shirk their workplace responsibilities are more likely to exaggerate their credentials, leading prospective employers to believe them to be highly qualified. - incorrect; explains the paradox - People who shirk exaggerate their credentials. So prospective employers believe that applicant is better than he/she is actually is.
(E) Finding a job is less urgent for the conscientious because they tend to have larger savings - incorrect; explains the paradox - maybe the Conscientious people are not that desperate to take the next available job offer as they have savings to last without a job

Answer A

Let us divide the population into 2 groups - 
group 1(People who shirk their workplace responsibilities) vs group 2(Conscientious people)

A few thoughts on option A-

People who shirk their workplace responsibilities are less likely to keep the jobs they have, so there are more of them looking for jobs-->  In my opinion, we can interpret this statement in two ways because it is unclear whether these people(group 1) start looking for jobs even when they are employed or ONLY after they have been laid off 
Case 1. If People who belong to group 1(who shirk their workplace responsibilities) start looking for jobs even when they are employed--> 
So, these people would have a better chance of finding a job.

In general, the more people try to look for a job, the more likely they are going to find a job.
In case 1, won't it be helpful to explain the paradox?

Case 2. If People who belong to group 1(who shirk their workplace responsibilities) start looking for jobs ONLY after they have been laid off-- then group 1 people DO NOT have any advantage.
Rather since employers prefer Conscientiousness, group 1 people will find it difficult to find a job
and group 1 is bigger in size
---> So it will deepen our paradox

AjiteshArun  ,  GMATNinja  ,  MagooshExpert  ,  GMATGuruNY  ,  VeritasPrepBrian  ,  MartyMurray  ,  DmitryFarber  ,  generis  , other experts - please enlighten

generis · Answer

The disparity?
Laid-off conscientious individuals are less likely to find jobs within five months than are their irresponsible peers, but
firms value conscientious employees highly, so presumably firms should hire conscientious individuals more frequently than firms hire irresponsible individuals.

Ignore the subtleties on the first pass through the answer (which may be the only one you need). 
The answers will address the different problems with the statement that I just wrote.

When I dealt with paradox or disparity questions on the LSAT, I almost never tried to pre-think.
Usually I am adamant that test-takers try to anticipate some kind of answer in CR.
Not in this context.
Paradox and disparity questions as general as this one is have too many possible explanations.
Let the answers do the work. 
And limit yourself to the use of the real-world conditions that are implied by the words that the LSAT gives. Bring nothing else into that option.

(A) People who shirk their workplace responsibilities are less likely to keep the jobs they have, so there are more of them looking for jobs. 
Maybe. This answer is frustrating because we have to think through a lot of details.
We have no clue about absolute vs. relative numbers.
Keep it. Look for answers that are easier to eliminate.

(B) Conscientious people tend to have a greater than average concern with finding the job most suited to their interests and abilities. 
Can explain the paradox. 
Conscientious people are pickier about which job they take than shirkers are. 
Because conscientious people are more selective, they will apply to jobs less frequently than an irresponsible person who will take any job.
Conscientious people also will be more likely to refuse job offers even if they do apply and get an offer. 
Picky job seekers have a lower hire rate than non-picky job seekers because the former are picky. Eliminate B.

(C) Resentment about having been laid off in spite of their conscientiousness leads some   people to perform poorly in interviews. 
Although "some" is not very strong, still, this answer can explain the paradox.
Performing poorly in interviews decreases the likelihood of getting hired. 
If conscientious people perform poorly in interviews  , these people are less likely than otherwise to get hired.
Eliminate C.

(D) People who are inclined to shirk their workplace responsibilities are more likely to exaggerate their credentials, leading prospective employers to believe them to be highly qualified. 
By far the easiest answer to eliminate so far.
Shirkers are more inclined to exaggerate their credentials, and prospective employers believe the exaggerators.
Although the shirkers are not as "highly qualified" as they say, they get hired more quickly than if they did not lie because "qualified' people get hired. 
Prospective employers hire exaggerators, who are also shirkers. Disparity in hiring rate between the populations can be explained. 
Eliminate D.

(E) Finding a job is less urgent for the conscientious because they tend to have larger savings. 
Another gift to eliminate. 
If finding a job is less urgent for the conscientious than for the shirkers, the conscientious could be
-- not looking for jobs at the same rate that shirkers with less savings are, or not looking as quickly ("within the first 5 months"), or being more picky.
Fewer on the market or fewer who will take any job = fewer of them hired than shirkers who have smaller savings and need jobs more urgently.
Eliminate E.

Back we go to answer A.
 (A) People who shirk their workplace responsibilities are less likely to keep the jobs they have, so there are more of them looking for jobs. 
On my second pass, this answer looks better. Option A is the least-bad answer.
Group A = conscientious employees. Group B = irresponsible employees.

The mere fact that there are more Bs than As looking for jobs does not help to explain the paradox.
More numbers applying means nothing. We cannot assume that more Bs applying = more Bs getting jobs.

Why? Because firms value conscientiousness, and thus irrespective of volume of applicants, firms should prefer a group A person.
If anything, a market flooded with shirkers makes the shirkers have a harder time to get a job.
There are more shirkers than non-shirkers applying for a job. So what?
Now the Bs are desperate, and the As look even better. The firms should be hiring As. The firms are not. Paradox is not explained.

Answer A

generis · Answer

Hello Skywalker18 , I would avoid importing real-world facts that are not clear from the prompt or the option. The LSAT will occasionally present a situation in which we can import a "real-world" fact. Not here. We have to stay with what we know: More shirkers are looking for jobs because they are less likely to keep them. Full stop. "Less likely to keep them" suggests, if anything, that the shirkers lost their jobs involuntarily, not that the shirkers voluntarily gave them up (and were searching for other employment). Again, I would not go here. Such analytical reasoning is incredibly tempting. LSAC people are counting on us to get tempted. True story: During practice for the LSAT, I learned to "feel" my mind start down a perfectly reasonable but textually unsupported path. I made up a way to stop myself. "Rabbit holes," I announced to myself, "are for rabbits . Nice try, LSAT." What I actually said was a lot more colorful and fierce than "Nice try," but the sentiment was the same.

We cannot speculate about what lies behind the fact that there are more shirkers looking. Nor can we speculate about what the shirkers were doing before they became unemployed. The suggestion is that the shirkers got fired. no, we cannot speculate that shirkers know that they will be fired and hence start searching for other employment. Why? Because neither the prompt nor the question gives us any information about motives. More to the point, there could be millions of shirkers and a dozen conscientious applicants. In a sheer numbers sense, those who looked earlier may have an advantage. MAY. But how much of that that advantage is offset by the clearly stated preference for conscientious workers, which gives the latter the advantage? We are now mired in probabilities and possibilities and my brain hurts. We cannot find the logic with the answers to questions that are speculative. That analytical reach is perfectly reasonable, but not warranted on the LSAT. The logic of the prompt does not support what would typically be a fair generalization highlighted in yellow. The logic of the prompt adds a filter: firms prefer conscientiousness. Conscientious employees are on the market. They should be getting hired. They are not. Further, I could neutralize this argument with a counter-argument. The more people of ANY kind, let alone a certain kind, who are looking for a job = it is the prospective employer who has the advantage, NOT the job seeker, and certainly not the irresponsible job seeker. More shirkers applying = more demand for the jobs = increased value of the job = employer has the advantage (and SHOULD pick the conscientious person!) This situation is like demand-pull inflation, which is roughly described as "too many dollars chasing too few goods," the result of which is that the price of goods increases. The good becomes more "valuable." The seller can get pickier about to whom the item is sold, either by increasing the price or by allowing it to be sold only at certain places or both. Now the high number of shirkers who seek a job is a liability, not an advantage. Although we cannot assume anything about absolute and relative numbers, this interpretation is much more consistent with the words in the prompt. This reasoning is excellent. Pick this route. Hope that helps.

kartickdey · Answer

In my opinion E also along with option A does not resolve the paradox. The question of likelihood arises when someone applies for a job but does not qualify. If someone does not even apply for job for having greater savings, then I think the question of likelihood does not arise. Please clarify.

guddo · Answer

Conscientiousness is high on most firms’ list of traits they want in employees. Yet a recent study found that laid-off conscientious individuals are less likely to find jobs within five months than are their peers who shirked their workplace responsibilities.

Each of the following, if true, helps to resolve the apparent paradox above EXCEPT:

Each of the following, if true, helps to resolve the apparent paradox above EXCEPT:

Employers say they value conscientious workers, but a study found that when people get laid off, conscientious people are less likely to find a new job  within five months  than people who used to shirk.

(A) People who shirk their workplace responsibilities are less likely to keep the jobs they have, so there are more of them looking for jobs.

This says more shirkers are job hunting because they lose jobs more often. That does not explain why shirkers would get hired faster than conscientious people; if anything, having more shirkers competing for jobs should make it harder for shirkers, not easier. So this does not resolve the paradox.

(B) Conscientious people tend to have a greater than average concern with finding the job most suited to their interests and abilities.

If conscientious people are pickier and spend longer searching for the best fit, then they may take longer to accept an offer even if employers like them. That resolves the paradox.

(C) Resentment about having been laid off in spite of their conscientiousness leads some people to perform poorly in interviews.

If some conscientious people feel bitter about being laid off and that hurts their interview performance, then they can take longer to get hired despite being conscientious. That resolves the paradox.

(D) People who are inclined to shirk their workplace responsibilities are more likely to exaggerate their credentials, leading prospective employers to believe them to be highly qualified.

If shirkers exaggerate credentials and look better on paper, they can get interviews or offers faster even if they are not actually better employees. That resolves the paradox.

(E) Finding a job is less urgent for the conscientious because they tend to have larger savings.

If conscientious people have more savings, they may feel less pressure to take the first acceptable job, so they search longer. That resolves the paradox.

Answer: (A)

guddo · Answer

The study’s “less likely to find a job within five months” is about the outcome “gets a job by five months,” not “gets rejected given they applied.”

If conscientious people have larger savings, then  they may apply less aggressively or wait longer before accepting offers , so fewer of them end up with a job by the five month mark. That directly explains the lower hiring rate, even if they would qualify when they do apply. That is why  E can resolve the paradox .

kartickdey · Answer

sorry to say, I do not think so...it is not about outcome only....if someone does not apply then it does not carry any sense to say that he is not likely to get a job....

guddo · Answer

Even if someone never applies, it still makes sense to say they’re “less likely to find a job within five months,” because the metric is simply: do they have a job by five months or not. Not applying (or applying less) is one direct reason they end up without a job by that deadline, so E still resolves it.

Conscientiousness is high on most firms’ list of traits they want in

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Conscientiousness is high on most firms’ list of traits they want in

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