I don't understand why choice A is wrong. It seems like the logical conclusion. Can you explain please?

This is a classic converse error.

The passage says that if HR matters, a company will have a VP of HR. We can translate this:

HR matters --> HR VP

If you had "HR matters" you'd certainly have "HR VP". But the relationship doesn't go the other way. Knowing that there is a VP doesn't allow you to conclude that HR matters.


Consider this example:

"If a man is in the military, he must be older than 16."

Now assume that you know a man named John is older than 16. Can you conclude that he must be in the military? The answer should clearly be "no".

Unfortunately, with less familiar subject matter (like HR departments), this relationship becomes less clear. Your best bet is to diagram the statement out with arrows if the relationship seems unclear.

Thank you for the answer, your example makes it clear.

Based on your explanation, I am making the classic converse mistake because I am also diagramming the contra positive.

When should I use the contra positive?

Terry,

You can think of the contrapositive like a tool for determining what can be concluded given a conditional relationship. It's never a bad or wrong time to find the contrapositive, and the contrapositive will never lead you to the wrong answer. Once you get good at finding the contrapositive, you'll be able to do it really quickly.

Here's and example:
"If that thing is a lemur, then it's a primate."
L → P

The contrapositive is:
~P → ~L

And this relationship is ALWAYS true.
If L → P is true, then ~P → ~L MUST be true.

In long form, if this statement is true: "If that thing is a lemur, then it's a primate," then it's also true that "If that thing is not a primate, then it's not a lemur."


Here's what you may be doing wrong:

Just because we have:
"If that thing is a lemur, then it's a primate."

does NOT mean we can conclude:
"If that thing is a primate, then it's a lemur."

This is the converse error. When diagrammed:
Having "L → P" does NOT allow us to conclude "P → L"

If you're doing this--and the LSAT will try to trick you into doing this--you'll get questions wrong.


Here's another thing you cannot do:

You cannot take "L → P" and conclude "~L → ~P"

This is the inverse error, and making it will result in incorrect answers as well.


Recap:
- Diagramming the contrapositive correctly will never cause you to answer questions incorrectly.
- Committing either the converse error OR the inverse error WILL cause you to answer questions incorrectly.

I don't understand how choice A is wrong. Can you pleas explain?

Aicha, please follow the discussion thread, it discusses it very thoroughly.

I have difficulty understanding question 8 of exercise 1. If a company's HR department matters at all it has a Vice president, company X has a VP for the HR department so
It's HR department must matter for company X?

But that answer is false and I don't understand why.

Jessica, it doesn't follow that if a company has an HR VP, then the HR Dept must matter. This is another example of a converse error. In this case, the company might have created an undeserved VP position just to make some people happy or to follow regulation, although in practice the company's management team doesn't really care. To understand more
about converse error, please follow this discussion thread or google "converse error". It is very common in LSATs.

Are converse errors typically made in conclusion questions?