PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 1
Director of Ace Manufacturing Company: Our management consultant(58 more words not shown)
The director's argument for rejecting(16 more words not shown)
- Afailing to distinguish(7 more words not shown)
- Battempting to defend(11 more words not shown)
- Cdefining a term(13 more words not shown)
- Ddrawing a conclusion(10 more words not shown)
- Ecalling something by(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Making good use of people's abilities isn't the same as mistreating them.
The consultant's plan initially sounds sensible: let employees do work they enjoy and do well. I would still ask whether that work is useful to the company. Someone could love playing Pokémon and be very good at it without that being a useful assignment at a law firm. Enjoyment and skill help only if the activity also serves the job.
But that isn't the director's objection. The director hears “exploiting our available resources” and treats it as a proposal to exploit workers.
Those are two different meanings of “exploit.” The consultant means making effective use of the resources available. The policy concerns taking unfair advantage of workers, such as making them endure abusive conditions. Assigning someone suitable work doesn't establish that we're doing the second thing.
Think of “pickle.” Being in a pickle doesn't put you inside a cucumber soaked in vinegar. The same word can mean different things, and we have to follow the meaning in each use.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks why the director's rejection fails. Our earlier question about useful work might be worth asking, but the director never raises it. The actual mistake is using one meaning of “exploit” to accuse the consultant of recommending the other.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The key term is “exploit.” In the proposal it means making effective use of resources; in the company's policy it means unfair treatment of workers. The director treats the two as interchangeable. A plan could make better use of employees' abilities while treating those employees well, so the wording doesn't establish a policy violation.
- B
This would be a defense such as, “Other companies routinely do this, so it's acceptable for us too.” The director never appeals to how common an action is. In fact, the director rejects the proposed action rather than defending it. Neither the evidence nor its role matches B.
- C
Where does the director define a word? And where is the unusual example supposedly used to define it? Neither appears. The director uses the consultant's phrase and the company's policy to make an argument; that is different from saying, “Here is what exploitation means, as illustrated by this example.” Confusing two meanings isn't defining a term through an atypical case.
- D
The conclusion is that implementing this proposal would violate the policy. The premises don't simply repeat that claim: they describe the proposal and the policy, and the director tries to connect them. An argument saying, “This would violate our policy because it would violate our policy,” would fit D. This argument instead makes a bad connection between distinct claims.
- E
Calling death “passing away” would be an example of choosing a less offensive expression. The director isn't softening a description that way. The problem is that the same word carries two meanings, not that a gentler word has been substituted for a harsher one.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.