- Tue Aug 13, 2024 6:43 pm
#108303
Hi nicizle,
The manager cites recent research that "shows when a common purpose is shared," (my emphasis) the flexibility of loosely bound groups functions better than tightly knit groups. The manager uses this research to come up with a strategy of assembling a team of workers who do not like to work in a tightly knit group.
The fundamental problem (and flaw) with the manager's plan is that the manager seems to have completely ignored the key part about sharing a common purpose. There is no indication that this group of workers will share a common purpose, and if they don't share a common purpose, then there is no reason to assume this strategy will succeed.
Answer D correctly identifies this flaw in the argument. If these people have difficulty in finding a common purpose, then there is no reason to think that the strategy will work, as this was a key feature of the groups that function better according to the recent research.
Answer A is describing an error of division, commonly referred to as a whole-to-part flaw. This would be assuming that a factor required by the whole team (for example, that the team is diversified and covers a wide range of skills) would also be required by each team member (that each member must be diverse and have a wide range of skills). This is not the flaw happening in the stimulus.
Answer B is describing a misuse of data/evidence by stating the research cited is not relevant to the argument. The research cited is relevant to the manager's plan. As the plan involves creating a team of workers and the research is about what groups of people function best together, the research is relevant.
Answer C is stating that the argument assumes that flexible teams always function better than inflexible teams. The argument doesn't assume this. The research clearly states that "when a common purpose is shared," then the loosely bound groups function better than tightly knit groups. (What the argument is assuming is that the manager's group members will share a common purpose, which is an unwarranted/questionable assumption and that is the flaw addressed in Answer D.)
Answer E describes confusing the manager's goals with the shared goals of the team members. The argument doesn't confuse these goals. The manager's goals are not discussed beyond "putting together a successful marketing team." Likewise, the shared goals or purpose of the team members are not specified. All that matters according to the research is that the team members have a shared purpose.
