Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S3 · Q15 A good manager must understand

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

A good manager must understand people and be able to defuse tense situations.

Conclusion

Ishiko must be a good manager

Evidence (since)

Ishiko is able to defuse tense situations. Anyone who is able to defuse tense situations must understand people.

(infer: Ishiko can understand people)

A good manager must understand people and be able to defuse tense situations.

Evaluate

This argument is functionally the same as this one: A Supreme Court justice must be able to speak in complete sentences and read things written in English. My buddy T-bone can read things written in English and speak in complete sentences. Thus, T-bone must be a Supreme Court justice.

There's a big difference between satisfying some necessary requirements for being X and definitely being X.

The first sentence doesn't say that the only things a good manager must be able to do is understand people and defuse tense situations. They might also need to be able to enter payroll information into the proper government forms, for example. Does Ishiko know how to do that? We don't know.

We are told a couple things required of being a good manager, and we're told that Ishiko meets those requirements. But meeting a couple requirements of being a good manager (or a SCOTUS justice) doesn't prove you are a good manager.

The formal name for this flaw is Necessary vs. Sufficient, which just means that the author presented conditional logic in her evidence, but then she tries to apply that conditional rule in backwards or opposite fashion.

If she presents a rule that says "X → Y", then the argument will either make the flawed argument that, "Since Ishiko is Y, she must be X" (illegal reversal) or the flawed argument that (illegal negation).

The first premise here looks like this

Good manager → Und ppl and Defuse tense

Then the author argues an illegal reversal: Ishiko can understand people and defuse tense situations. Therefore, she must be a good manager.

Goal

Look for an answer pointing out the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, or one making more conversational objections like,

15.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that it

  1. confuses a quality that shows

    Wrong Conditional

    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% picked this

  2. confuses a quality that usually

    Wrong Flaw: not Causal

    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% picked this

  3. Correct

    confuses qualities necessary for 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.

    86% picked this

  4. overlooks the possibility that different

    Not an Objection

    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% picked this

  5. takes for granted that because

    Bad Conclusion Match

    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% 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