PrepTest 109, Section 1, Question 22
Lawyer: Did Congleton assign the best available graphic(48 more words not shown)
Each of the following accurately(10 more words not shown)
- AIt takes for(15 more words not shown)
- BIt takes for(13 more words not shown)
- CIt ignores the(16 more words not shown)
- DIt ignores the(20 more words not shown)
- EIt ignores the(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Hiring excellent people doesn't prove that you want their project to succeed. What if you sabotage it some other way?
Congleton could put the best writer and graphic artist on the team, look supportive to everyone watching, and then make the project impossible behind the scenes. Staffing is one part of running a project. The lawyer treats it as though it settles Congleton's intentions.
I'd also want to know whether she actually had a choice about those assignments. If someone else required her to use these people, the assignments tell us even less about what she wanted. We can accept that the people were top notch without accepting the lawyer's accusation that the witness lied.
What we’re looking for
This is a flaw EXCEPT question. Four choices will identify real problems with that accusation; one won't. Our initial concern is that assigning good people doesn't rule out wanting failure. Keep the question about Congleton's intentions separate from the question of what could actually make a project fail.
Working the answers
- A
This is a real problem, so eliminate it. If Congleton was forced to assign these people, using them doesn't reveal her own preference for success. She could want failure and still comply with the staffing requirement. The lawyer relies on treating the assignments as evidence of her intentions without establishing that they reflect her choice.
- BCorrect
The lawyer doesn't assume that a project can fail only when Congleton wants it to fail. The argument concerns what the staffing decision shows about her intentions, not every possible cause of an unsuccessful project.
The lawyer could readily admit that a project might fail from unexpected problems even when Congleton wants it to succeed. That admission wouldn't change the lawyer's reasoning about why hiring excellent people supposedly proves she didn't want failure. B identifies a claim the lawyer has no need to make.
- C
This is another real problem. Two individually excellent people can be a terrible team. Imagine a writer and designer with a history of conflict who cannot collaborate, and suppose Congleton knows that. Assigning both could undermine the project while still allowing her to say she chose the best people in their individual roles. The lawyer never rules out that possibility.
- D
This adds a separate problem we hadn't needed for the initial prediction: being mistaken isn't the same as lying.
Even if the staffing evidence really did show that Congleton wanted success, the witness might fail to understand what that evidence implies. The witness could honestly believe Congleton wanted failure. The lawyer jumps from an allegedly incorrect statement to a deliberate falsehood without showing that the witness knew the statement was wrong.
- E
This fits our original objection directly. Give an excellent team too little time or too few resources, and its members may be unable to deliver. Congleton could sabotage the project through those decisions while assigning capable people. Good staffing doesn't establish that she gave the project a genuine chance to succeed.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.