PrepTest 121, Section 4, Question 23
Company president: Our consultants report that, in general,(33 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(11 more words not shown)
- AThe consultants use(16 more words not shown)
- BSuccessful time management(9 more words not shown)
- CMost managers at(11 more words not shown)
- DMost managers who(10 more words not shown)
- EMost managers who(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Efficient managers tend to manage their time well. Does teaching time-management techniques turn someone into an efficient manager?
I can see why the president likes the idea. Wasting less time sounds useful. Still, the consultants have described two traits that occur together; they haven't shown that teaching one produces the other. They also haven't shown that this particular seminar can give the middle-level managers the skills that distinguish the best managers.
What we’re looking for
This is a weakening EXCEPT question. Four answers will give us some reason to doubt the recommendation's support. We want the remaining answer, which leaves that support alone. Keep the actual proposal in view: make training available to the middle-level managers to improve productivity.
Working the answers
- A
This takes a little more unpacking. Imagine the consultants ask the same five questions to rate efficiency and time management. A manager's five answers then determine both scores. Of course the people rated highly on one measure also score highly on the other: the ratings come from the same test.
That makes the apparent connection less useful as independent evidence. It doesn't show that teaching time-management techniques will produce a separate improvement in productivity. The observed match may simply reflect how the consultants defined and measured the traits, which weakens the support for the recommendation.
- B
The seminar teaches techniques. If successful time management depends more on motivation, techniques may not address the main obstacle. A manager could learn what to do without being motivated to do it. This doesn't prove training useless, but it gives us a reason to doubt that offering this training will deliver the hoped-for benefit.
- C
Managers elsewhere have tried seminars and most remain unproductive. That's discouraging evidence for expecting a seminar to make these managers productive. “Still unproductive” doesn't prove they improved by zero, but the lack of a successful outcome does cast doubt on the proposed remedy.
- DCorrect
Perhaps managers who are already efficient don't need improvement. That tells us little about whether the middle-level managers who could benefit from improvement should have access to the seminar. The company hasn't said all its middle-level managers are already efficient, nor has it proposed that every efficient manager needs training. D leaves the support for the actual recommendation alone.
- E
The efficient managers generally did not attend such a seminar. So the people offered as evidence for the recommendation didn't usually acquire their efficiency through the proposed intervention. That makes it harder to use their success as support for this particular training plan. It doesn't prove a seminar could never help; it questions what the cited successful managers demonstrate about seminars.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.