PT115 · S2 · Q20 Productivity is average output per worker

When the authors commit a Necessary vs. Sufficient error, as our author did here, it's common to see a trap answer that uses that kind of language, but applies it to the wrong conditional. For example, if I argued this: Since A → B and A → C Clearly, B → C Did I mess up the 1st conditional or the 2nd one? When we look at the conclusion, is it wrong to have B on the left side of the arrow or to have C on the right side? The first conditional is bad. The author is thinking she has these two premises: Since A → B B → A and A → C Clearly, B → C In this argument, the author messed up the conditional in the 2nd sentence. It says that "High productivity requires adequate training", but the author's conclusion is acting like it said "Adequate training is sufficient to provide high productivity". So if this answer said "confuses a stated requirement for high productivity, rather than high-tech equipment", it would be correct.

When Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "If true, would this idea be an objection to the argument?" Would it weaken this argument if we said that "in some circumstances, an increase in productivity might not be desirable"? No, it couldn't. We're only assessing whether or not high-tech equipment is required for high productivity. We're not assessing whether high productivity is a good thing or bad thing, whether it's desirable or undesirable.

When Flaw answers start with presumes / takes for granted / fails to establish we can ask ourselves, "did the author need to assume this idea?" If we had read this argument on Necessary Assumption, would we have said the author is assuming that "educating workers always results in an increase in their productivity"? That's very strong. Tons of Flaw answer choices are wrong because they accuse the author of assuming some really strong idea. To be honest, this could get tempting, because the author was treating the 2nd sentence as a sufficient idea: Adequate Training → High Productivity. And this answer is almost saying that the author is assuming that conditional. But both the trigger and the outcome here are slightly different ideas: Educating Workers → Increase in Productivity

When Flaw answers start with presumes / takes for granted / fails to establish we can ask ourselves, "did the author need to assume this idea?" If we had read this argument on Necessary Assumption, would we have said the author is assuming that "high-tech equipment can never contribute to increases in productivity"? No, that's very strong. Tons of Flaw answer choices are wrong because they accuse the author of assuming some really strong idea like this. The author was saying that high-tech equipment isn't required for high productivity; she wasn't saying it was value-less. I can say "Getting into Harvard does not depend on having a 180 LSAT", but that doesn't mean I believe "getting a 180 on your LSAT cannot contribute to increasing your likelihood of being admitted to Harvard".