Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S2 · Q8 Manager: The only employees

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Manager: The only employees who should receive bonuses this year are those who were exceptionally productive over the past year.

Evidence

The only employees who should receive bonuses this year are those who were exceptionally productive over the past year.

Liang works in a division that has failed to meet its productivity goals for the year.

Conclusion

Liang should not receive a bonus this year.

Evaluate

The evidence would provide more support for this conclusion if the second premise stated that Liang failed to meet her productivity goals for the year. But we're only told that the division that Liang works in failed to meet its goals. The argument assumes that what is true of the division is also true for Liang. That's not necessarily the case.

Goal

Look for an answer that describes a Part vs. Whole flaw, an assumption that something must be true of one part (Liang) if it is true of the whole (the division).

8.

The reasoning in the manager's argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. fails to take into account

    Out of Scope

    The argument never compares different divisions in the corporation. Any variation of standards from one division to another is outside the scope of the argument and has no clear impact.

    1% picked this

  2. overlooks the possibility that a

    Out of Scope

    The argument never discusses profits. It also never discusses the corporation as a whole, only the corporate division that Liang works in. Profits and the corporation as a whole are outside the scope of the argument and have no clear impact.

    1% picked this

  3. fails to justify its use

    Out of Scope

    The argument is based on the performance of Liang's division but never discusses the performance of a wholly different group.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    reaches a conclusion about the

    Why this is right

    This accurately describes the Part vs. Whole flaw in this argument.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    97% picked this

  5. takes for granted that an

    Out of Scope

    The argument does not make any assumptions about subsequent years. The argument only discusses productivity over the past year. Performance in subsequent years is outside the scope of the argument.

    0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free