PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 26
Employee: Vernon's behavior in last month's incident was(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- Aillicitly using a(11 more words not shown)
- Bconfusing behavior that(15 more words not shown)
- Coffering as its(11 more words not shown)
- Dtreating behavior that(15 more words not shown)
- Einferring that one(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why not fire the other employees too?
The employee accepts that Vernon's conduct was bad enough to justify firing him. That doesn't mean the company had to fire him, but it does mean the argument isn't defending his behavior as acceptable. The complaint is about different treatment: other employees behaved just as badly in the same incident and kept their jobs.
I can see why that looks inconsistent. We might first ask why consistency must determine the response. But even if we grant that it should, giving Vernon his job back isn't the only way to achieve it. The company could instead fire the other employees who behaved just as unprofessionally.
Compare the two outcomes. Rehire Vernon, and the employees all keep their jobs. Fire the others, and they all lose their jobs. Either outcome removes the difference the employee complains about. We don't have to recommend the harsher option to see that the argument hasn't ruled it out.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I want that missing alternative. The employee presents one way to restore consistency as though consistency requires that particular response.
Working the answers
- A
Which word changes meaning? The argument uses firing, unprofessional behavior, and consistency in ordinary, stable ways. It doesn't reach the conclusion by switching definitions. We should be able to identify both meanings before choosing a description of that error.
- B
The argument says Vernon's behavior is enough to justify firing him. It doesn't say that only this behavior could justify firing someone. An employee might also be fired for a different serious problem. The author never denies that possibility, so this is not the mistake being made.
- C
The conclusion is that the company must give Vernon his job back. The premises describe his conduct and the treatment of the other employees; they don't already say he must be rehired. The argument offers reasons for its recommendation, even though those reasons fail to eliminate the other consistent response.
- D
Justifying an action is different from guaranteeing that it occurs. The employee doesn't say this behavior always results in firing. In fact, the unfired higher-ranking employees are examples of that behavior without that result. The complaint is that the company treated them differently, not a prediction that everyone behaving this way is always fired.
- ECorrect
The problem is inconsistent treatment, and the proposed response is to rehire Vernon. The overlooked response is to fire the other employees whose conduct was just as bad. The argument has already accepted that conduct of this seriousness can justify firing, so that alternative fits its own starting point.
Once another response could also restore consistency, we can no longer conclude that the company must choose reinstatement. Restoring consistency might be a reason to change something, but it doesn't by itself decide which direction the change must take.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.