LR Drill Set 9, Question 2
In dealing with new employees, it is best(35 more words not shown)
The principle underlying the reasoning(15 more words not shown)
- AIn selling automobiles(25 more words not shown)
- BIn assigning combat(37 more words not shown)
- CIn selecting contractors(44 more words not shown)
- DIn submitting the(33 more words not shown)
- EIn deciding whether(48 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If I trained this employee, admitting that the employee is doing badly might feel like admitting that I did a bad job.
That gives me a reason to like the recommendation. A trainer who also evaluates the trainee may be tempted to protect the training rather than judge the employee honestly. Having someone else do the evaluation helps separate those jobs.
I wouldn't say every poor performance proves poor training. Even an excellent baseball coach might fail to turn a particular beginner into a good hitter. The learner matters too. Still, we can understand the concern: when the result reflects on your own work, evaluating it can become a form of evaluating yourself.
What we’re looking for
We need another argument based on that same concern. Merely dividing work between two people won't be enough. Pay attention to why the jobs are separated. We're looking for an evaluation that could reflect badly on the evaluator's earlier work.
Working the answers
- A
Two salespeople do different tasks, but neither is evaluating the other's earlier work. The reason for the division is specialized training: one person can focus on approaching customers and another on closing sales. That doesn't reproduce the danger of having to criticize your own performance.
- B
The commanding officers have a limited view of the battle. The answer therefore recommends someone with a different perspective. It doesn't say that a decision about a unit would amount to judging the decision maker's own prior work. We cannot supply that reason just because it would make B closer.
- C
This addresses the appearance of improper favoritism toward a relative. It even allows that nothing improper actually happens. The original concerns an evaluation reflecting on the evaluator's own skills, not what outsiders might think about a family connection.
- D
This is close enough to deserve a careful second look. An author creates something, and someone else checks it. Those roles resemble training and evaluation. But the reason is different: familiarity makes mistakes hard to notice.
Imagine an author who sincerely wants to correct every error but keeps reading the intended word instead of the word on the page. That fits D without any desire to protect the author's reputation. The employee argument focuses on a negative evaluation reflecting badly on the evaluator's own work. D's familiarity problem isn't that concern.
- ECorrect
The treating psychiatrist corresponds to the employee's trainer. Deciding whether the patient is ready for release corresponds to evaluating the employee's performance. Finding that the patient is not ready reflects badly on the treatment, just as finding that the employee performs poorly reflects badly on the training.
So the same person would be assessing a result that reflects on that person's own work. Both arguments recommend using a different evaluator to separate those responsibilities. E matches the reason for the recommendation, not just the fact that two people are involved.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 1, Question 5Parallel Reasoning
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 3Parallel Reasoning
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 5Parallel Reasoning
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 2Parallel Reasoning
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 14, Question 12Parallel Reasoning
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.