PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 25
When interviewing job candidates, personnel managers not only(66 more words not shown)
The argument is flawed because(8 more words not shown)
- AA candidate's involvement(11 more words not shown)
- BCandidates who have(13 more words not shown)
- CInquiries about a(13 more words not shown)
- DHaving certain kinds(11 more words not shown)
- EPersonnel managers may(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Even if enthusiasm for a hobby tells us little about enthusiasm for a job, why stop asking about hobbies altogether?
I agree that enjoying a hobby doesn't guarantee excitement about work. Someone could love cooking and have no particular enthusiasm for answering customer-service calls. The author also raises the possibility that a candidate cares more about recreation than work. But even that could be useful to learn during an interview. An answer doesn't have to flatter the candidate to help a manager evaluate the candidate.
More broadly, the question could provide useful information for reasons other than enthusiasm carrying over. It might reveal something about the person, or make the conversation feel more comfortable. Showing a problem with one proposed benefit doesn't rule out all the others.
What we’re looking for
Notice the EXCEPT in the question. Four choices will identify overlooked possibilities that challenge the recommendation not to ask. We want the remaining choice: something that does not provide a reason the author's blanket recommendation could be mistaken. I'll look for useful benefits in four answers and a choice that doesn't do that job.
Working the answers
- A
This is a possible benefit the argument overlooks. Someone who has pursued a hobby seriously for years may demonstrate an ability to sustain a commitment. That could be useful information even if the person will never feel the same enthusiasm for work. We don't have to prove that every long-term hobby predicts a great employee; the choice identifies a possible reason to ask.
- BCorrect
A candidate's inventing a hobby does not give us a reason that asking about hobbies is useful. If anything, the possibility of fabricated answers could create another concern about the value of the question. It doesn't expose a missed benefit that undermines the author's recommendation.
B may describe something the author hasn't mentioned. But this is not a hunt for any omitted fact. The other choices identify omissions that make the argument vulnerable. B is the exception because its possibility doesn't do that.
- C
The benefit could be in the conversation rather than the content of the hobby answer. A relaxed candidate might give more honest, informative answers to the important questions that follow. That gives us a reason to ask even if enthusiasm for the hobby tells us nothing about enthusiasm for the job.
- D
Good organizational skills are useful information about a candidate. A hobby could reveal those skills without showing that the candidate will enjoy the job just as much. The author considers one possible interpretation of hobby enthusiasm and overlooks this different reason the inquiry could help.
- E
This offers a broader objection than the particular benefits we predicted. Preventing managers from asking a whole type of question could make their choices worse. If flexibility helps them select candidates, that counts against the proposed restriction. E does not establish that every possible interview question is appropriate or useful; it presents a possible cost of the restriction that this argument has not considered.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.