A good manager must understand

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Conditional6% picked this

   confuses a quality that shows an understanding of people with a quality that is necessary

   This answer is pretending that the conditional rule the author messed up was the one in the 2nd sentence, about a quality (able to defuse tense situations) that that shows an understanding of people. But the author was fine in regards to the 2nd sentence: able to defuse tense ? understand people Ishiko is able to defuse tense, (so Ishiko understands people) There was nothing wrong with that part of the argument. The author messed up the logic of the rule in the 1st sentence. She confused qualities required to be a good manager with qualities that would show you are a good manager.

   6%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw: not Causal6% picked this

   confuses a quality that usually correlates with being a good manager with a quality that results from

   This answer choice accuses the argument of confusing a correlated factor with a causal factor. That is a famous flaw, but not the one being committed here. There isn't a correlation given (we could pretend the first sentence could play the role of a correlation, but it is not presented that way). Correlations sound like this: Good managers tend to be X People who are good managers are more likely than those who aren't to have quality X Quality X is associated with being a good manager And there is definitely nothing in this argument that is acting like being a good manager caused Ishiko to have a certain quality (that resulted from her being a good manager).

   6%
3. C

   Correct85% picked this

   confuses qualities necessary for being a good manager with qualities that guarantee being

   Why this is right

   The first sentence lists out two qualities required for being a good manager: 1. understand people 2. able to defuse tense situations The argument establishes that Ishiko possesses both those qualities and then acts like that proves that she must be a good manager. In doing so, the author is confusedly acting like those qualities guarantee that you're a good manager. Confusing "necessary" with "guarantee" is the same as Necessary vs. Sufficient.

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

   85%
4. D

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that different managers defuse tense situations in

   When we see Flaw answer choices that begin with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "(assuming they didn't address this issue), would it weaken the argument, if true?" Would it weaken this argument to say, "Hey, author, different managers defuse tense situations in different ways"? No. That would only hurt his argument if he had been assuming that all managers defuse tense situations the same way, but he wasn't assuming anything like that.

   1%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   takes for granted that because all good managers have a certain quality, Ishiko must

   When a Flaw answer choice is structured like takes for granted that because X, Y we ask ourselves whether X matched the evidence and Y matched the conclusion (or some assumption the author made en route to the conclusion). Was there a premise that said, "All good managers have a certain quality"? Yes, they all have the quality of "Understand people and can defuse tense situation". Did the author conclude that Ishiko must have that quality? No the author presented half of that as a premise and the other half as an implied premise. The conclusion was that Ishiko must be a good manager. We could fix this answer somewhat by saying: (E) takes for granted that because all good managers have certain qualities, that anyone possessing those qualities is a good manager.

   2%