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

Question

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.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

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)

panopticon · Answer

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

Ruchirkalra · Answer

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

panopticon · Answer

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.

chrisbender · Answer

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.

panopticon · Answer

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.

chrisbender · Answer

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.

panopticon · Answer

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.

masakiyada · Answer

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.

KarishmaB · 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..."

masakiyada

Tiffsootmoot8 · Answer

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!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

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

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

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