People who have doctorates in the liberal arts are interested in improving their intellects.
Conclusion (as a result)
Companies rarely hire people who have doctorates in liberal arts.
Evidence
Companies rarely hire people who are not concerned with the financial gain you can achieve by hard work in business.
People with doctorates in the liberal arts are interested in improving their intellects.
Evaluate
On Sufficient Assumption, we have to mathematically prove the words/ideas in the conclusion, so we always start by asking ourselves, "is there a New Idea in the conclusion?"
In this conclusion, there was nothing new, because both "companies rarely hire" and "people with doctorates in liberal arts" were both defined in the evidence.
That means that we're missing an internal link in the evidence.
Sentences have naming parts and telling parts:
NAMING PART TELLING PART Joe is a real jerk. The color of money resembles that of peas. People who like flan talk about flan constantly.
People with doctorates are rarely hired in liberal arts by companies
We can think about the conclusion as a big conveyor belt of logic we're trying to build, to get from the naming part to the telling part.
We scan the evidence to see what ideas we have.
People with interested in doctorates in → improve liberal arts intellects
People not want rarely financial gain of → hired by hard business work companies
We're just missing an internal link
Interested in People not want improve → financial gain intellects of hard biz work
to build our conclusion's logic conveyor belt:
People with rarely doctorates in ---------------> hired by liberal Arts companies
Goal
So we're looking for that missing internal link:
No matter what, we know that in order to prove "Companies rarely hire Dr. Libs", we need to know that .