Can someone point out the flaw in the below line of reasnoning?
Here's the hiring manager's reasoning-
No Interviews => Some Unfit Candidates get in. This is logically equivalent to No Unfit candidate gets in => interviews happened. (A=>B <=> Not B=> Not A)
Negating Option C, If not all interviews can weed out unfit people, some unfit people get in => interviews are not successful The hiring manager's reasoning breaks down.
Also with Option B, there is no additional information
...
Here's the hiring manager's reasoning-
No Interviews => Some Unfit Candidates get in. This is logically equivalent to No Unfit candidate gets in => interviews happened. (A=>B <=> Not B=> Not A)
Negating Option C, If not all interviews can weed out unfit people, some unfit people get in => interviews are not successful The hiring manager's reasoning breaks down.
Also with Option B, there is no additional information
...
