PrepTest 146, Section 3, Question 15
A good manager must understand people and be(31 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Aconfuses a quality(15 more words not shown)
- Bconfuses a quality(18 more words not shown)
- Cconfuses qualities necessary(13 more words not shown)
- Doverlooks the possibility(9 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Ishiko is wonderful with people and terrible at running the work. A manager at a technology company might also need technical knowledge. A manager might need to organize deadlines or allocate tasks. The two qualities listed needn't be the whole job.
What we’re looking for
The argument does establish that Ishiko has both listed qualities. She can defuse tense situations, and we're told anyone who can do that understands people. So the problem isn't that she lacks one of those two requirements. It's that meeting them might not be enough. For the flaw question, look for the jump from having qualities a good manager needs to being guaranteed to be a good manager.
Working the answers
- A
The argument accepts that defusing tense situations shows an understanding of people. It doesn't turn that around and insist that everyone who understands people must be able to defuse tense situations. Its mistaken conclusion concerns whether Ishiko is a good manager, not what she needs in order to understand people.
- B
This describes a different error involving a cause. Imagine observing that managers tend to be tall and then concluding that becoming a manager makes people grow taller. A quality that appears alongside management has been treated as a result of management.
Our argument doesn't say that being a good manager causes Ishiko's abilities. It uses her abilities to classify her as a good manager. We need an answer about treating requirements as enough, not an answer about what produced those qualities.
- CCorrect
Understanding people and defusing tense situations are qualities a good manager must have. Ishiko has them, but the argument treats that as guaranteeing she is a good manager. She could still lack some other essential ability, such as the knowledge needed to manage the work itself. Meeting two requirements doesn't establish that every requirement has been met.
- D
Different people could calm tense situations in different ways, but Ishiko is already said to be able to do it. Her particular method doesn't address whether that ability, together with understanding people, is enough for good management. Even a very effective method would leave that question open.
- E
This would describe inferring Ishiko's quality from what good managers are like. But we are directly told she can defuse tense situations. The argument then uses that known ability to infer that she is a good manager. E reverses which information is given and which conclusion is being drawn.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.