PrepTest 131, Section 3, Question 9
Manager: There is no good reason to suppose(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AUsing creativity in(10 more words not shown)
- BEmployee training programs(7 more words not shown)
- CMany jobs require(4 more words not shown)
- DThere is no(11 more words not shown)
- ECreativity is in(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
For some jobs, I can see why consistency matters more than creativity. Imagine someone making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and deciding to add pickles. That might be creative, but it isn't necessarily what the customer ordered. A training program for that job might sensibly emphasize making the expected sandwich well.
But are all the relevant jobs like that? A job involving computer programming might benefit from creative solutions. Saying that many jobs need little creativity doesn't tell us that promoting creativity is an unsuitable goal for employee training generally.
The manager adds a separate reason: even if creativity were in demand, there is no evidence it can be taught. Notice the limit of that claim. An absence of evidence that we can teach something doesn't establish that teaching it is impossible.
Imagine someone saying, “I've always struggled with drawing; perhaps artistic skill just can't be taught to me.” The difficulty might be real, but it doesn't establish that teaching cannot work. Likewise, the manager's lack of evidence leaves that possibility open.
What we’re looking for
We're identifying the main conclusion, so we needn't resolve these objections. Both lines of reasoning are meant to support the opening claim: there is no good reason to suppose that promoting creativity is a proper goal of an employee training program. The later claims explain why the manager thinks that.
Working the answers
- A
This is one reason offered for rejecting creativity as a training goal. The manager says creativity can be disruptive in jobs that don't require it, then uses that concern to support the broader conclusion about training programs. A gives the supporting concern rather than the main point.
- B
This is stronger than what the manager actually says. No evidence that creativity can be taught is not the same as proof that training programs cannot teach it. In addition, the claim about teaching is offered in support of the conclusion about what goals are justified; it isn't that conclusion itself.
- C
The claim that many jobs require little or no creativity helps explain the manager's view. It is a premise. The conclusion goes further by judging whether promoting creativity is a proper goal for employee training.
- DCorrect
This restates the opening claim. Calling something a proper goal means saying that a program should promote it. The points about job requirements, disruption, and the lack of evidence about teaching creativity are all meant to support the judgment that there is no good reason for that goal.
- E
The manager does not state that creativity is in demand. The argument says “even if” it were, the evidence about teaching it would still be lacking. E turns a possibility considered for the sake of argument into an asserted fact, and it still leaves out the overall judgment about the program's goal.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.