Civil Service employee

[dipaksingh]

III was a classic trap. I almost fell for it but recovered just in time.

It would be correct to say that most CS are GE
or CS -> GE
the contra-positive is that ~GE --> ~CS

however it would be incorrect to assume that most GE are CS. It's logical if you think about it. You could work for Fannie Mae and not be a civil servant.

psyzygy,
would u please explain the signs & marks u have used.and what is contra positive.
thanks in advance.

[jydpsaha]

III was a classic trap. I almost fell for it but recovered just in time.

It would be correct to say that most CS are GE
or CS -> GE
the contra-positive is that ~GE --> ~CS

however it would be incorrect to assume that most GE are CS. It's logical if you think about it. You could work for Fannie Mae and not be a civil servant.

It may not be the analysis you have derived upon. In my view III is rejected as we may also infer that Civil Service Employees plays a vital role in the government bodies although their relative population is less. I want to inflict the example of ABC analysis - where it says although may be the population of certain ingradiants of any mix is less but the percent contribution may be very high.

II can easily be rejected as it is out of scope.

[Ayodenuga]

Some of these explanationa are confusing. I choose "B" Giomar said he choose "A" but his explanations do not follow. If you chose "A" why does your explanation contradict A. Anyway... I see what psyzygy is saying now. I can say ALL CS ->GE and ALL GE -> CS but I cant say same GE are CS??? right. Please confirm or comment on my thought process. thanks

[giomar]

Hi Ayodenuga,

Maybe my post was a bit confusing.I Wrote my reasoning so the others could see what was wrong with it (at first I got the wrong answer) and made their comments.

Also,I´m a "she"!!!!

Regarding your reasoning:It´s true all CS are GE but that doesn´t mean necessarily ALL GE are CS as Psyzygy said.

For example I can say: all prime numbers are integers but,are all integers prime numbers? I don´t think so.

HTH

[crazyonMBA]

First, Sorry for the late reply.
Here is the xplanation
Conclusion:The govt is inefficient.

Evidence:Govt needs to spend a lot of money and effort to fire the civil service employees who tend to loaf otherwise.

assumption: Most of the employees are civil service employees.. then only you can conclude that govt is inefficient.

Inference:the employees tend to loaf. This is the catch here.It means that they are missuing the govts inefficiency.

From I, yup it clearly says that Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.

From II, More government workers should be fired -> Outof scope

From III, Most government workers are Civil Service employees -> it is but this is the assumption and not the inference.

Thats why is chose A.