LR Drill Set 2, Question 11
Giving special recognition to employees who regularly exceed(52 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in the(12 more words not shown)
- AA policy of(43 more words not shown)
- BKenneth and Martin(40 more words not shown)
- CFire drills in(40 more words not shown)
- DThe latest children's(39 more words not shown)
- EEliminating the school's(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about the employees in the middle?
The most dedicated employees already work as hard as they can. Recognition won't squeeze extra work out of them. The employees who only want to get by don't care about the recognition. I can accept that neither extreme responds and still wonder about people between them.
Imagine an employee who does solid work, cares somewhat about the company, and has room to improve. The prospect of recognition might motivate that person to do more. The argument hasn't told us that everyone belongs to one of its two groups.
There could also be reasons to recognize good work other than increasing productivity. But the claim here is specifically that recognition is unlikely to increase productivity, so the missing middle is enough to challenge it.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, find two groups that won't be affected and a conclusion treating their lack of response as if it covered everyone. The important match is the omitted group, not whether the answer talks about an incentive.
Working the answers
- A
This describes a practical conflict between a monthly collection schedule and people's need to replace appliances sooner. It doesn't identify two extremes, show the policy has no effect on either, and overlook a middle group. Whatever its merits, that is a different reason for doubting a policy.
- B
Kenneth and Martin are the two people whose shared weekend is being discussed, not two ends of a larger population. Their preferred activities conflict. There might be a compromise, but finding one would address a disagreement between those two people, not an omitted middle group of employees.
- C
The word “only” limits who takes the drills seriously; it doesn't leave an unmentioned middle group of serious participants. But don't assume that makes the argument sound. Being aware of fire damage doesn't mean someone already knows how to escape safely, so those participants could still learn. That would be a different flaw from ignoring people between two extremes.
- D
Over six and six-and-under cover every age, so there isn't a middle age group the answer forgets. The argument could still be questionable: an adult might tolerate a movie to accompany a child. That concern challenges whether the evidence establishes failure, not whether an entire middle group was omitted.
- ECorrect
Students who play sports match the already-dedicated employees: they already get the desired amount of exercise without the class. Students who hate exercise and skip match employees who don't respond to recognition. But what about students who don't play a sport and still attend class? They could get important exercise from it.
Removing the class could affect those students even if neither extreme changes. E repeats the original mistake of treating two groups as if they exhausted the population, while overlooking the middle group that could respond.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.