#19 - Arbitrator: The shipping manager admits that he decide

[emilysnoddon]

For this question, I was deciding between answer choices A and D. I was under the impression that in order to justify the conclusion we needed to show that the manager should be held responsible - thus connect responsibility for being aware of the typical delays. I thought since answer choice A only included should it was not as strong as D and therefore did not justify the conclusion. Can you please clear this up for me?


Is answer D wrong because he does not directly supervise the the contractor? I didnt think this was clear from the stim. Let me know.


Thank you,

Emily

[Eric Ockert]

Emily

Undoubtedly, the problem with answer choice (D) is exactly what you describe. And you are right, it is not clear whether or not the shipping manager directly supervises the contractor. But that is the point. Answer choice (D) cannot support this argument unless you KNOW that the shipping manager directly supervises that individual. Without that knowledge, answer choice (D) doesn't necessarily apply to this stimulus.

With answer choice (A), we KNOW this problem was foreseeable according to the arbitrator since the shipping manager was "aware of the contractor's typical delays should have planned for this contingency." So if this rule give us a responsibility that managers have, and we know this shipping manager didn't meet that responsibility, that would provide some blameworthiness.

Remember, in these Principle questions the Principle in the correct answer can be broader than the specific discussion in the stimulus, as long as the facts of the stimulus would fall under that broad rule. In other words, we don't care how many other situations the rule might apply to as long it applies to this situation.

However, an answer cannot be narrower than the discussion in the stimulus.....and that is exactly the problem with answer choice (D).

Hope that helps!

[nealaguo]

One thing I'm a bit confused about is whether or not we are supposed to take the phrase "directly supervises" literally or not.

When I did this question, I took "directly supervises" to mean "in charge of/overseeing", rather than literally watching over the contractors' every move. So, D definitely seemed like the right answer to me because it would mean that the manager is responsible for the mistakes of his inferiors.

I just assumed that the phrase was meant to have a general meaning rather than a literal one - was I wrong to make this assumption?

Cheers,

[Paul Marsh]

Hi nealaguo! Your definition of "directly supervising" seems like a good one - "in charge of/overseeing". However, there is nothing in the stimulus that tells us the shipping manager is in charge of/overseeing the work of the contractor! Nowhere are we told that the the contractor is, to use your word, an "inferior" of the supervisor.

If I hire a contractor to fix the roof of my house, does that make me the direct supervisor of that contractor? No - normally we would not say that the contractor is my subordinate employee; rather he/she is an independent individual that I've hired for a particular job. The manager and the contractor in the stimulus likely have the same relationship. To speculate that they have an supervisor - supervisee relationship requires an assumption not supported by the stimulus (or by our normal understanding of what a contractor is). Therefore we can't say that the principle in Answer Choice (D) applies to the situation at hand, since we have no reason to think the manager is directly overseeing the contractor. As Eric explained nicely above, Answer Choice (A) applies neatly to the stimulus and is the better answer. Hope that helps!

[lsatstudent99966]

Hi there,

Even though all of the wrong answer choices are clearly wrong, I still have a question about answer choice (A).

In these types of questions, isn't the answer choice supposed to bridge the gap between the premise and the conclusion of the argument?

The premise here is: The shipping manager is aware of the contractor's typical delays and should have planned for them.

The conclusion is: The shipping manager should also be blamed.

The gap that needs to be addressed seems to be: A manager should be blamed for failing to plan for delays that he/she was aware of and should have planned for.

However, (A) only states that "A manager should take foreseeable problems into account when making decisions."

Isn't (A) just repeating what the premise already says? The premise already tells us that the manager should have planned for the delays. Isn't that the same as saying the manager should take foreseeable problems into account?

I'm not really sure how (A) brings the premise and conclusion any closer together.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lsatstudent,

You're right that:

"The gap that needs to be addressed seems to be: A manager should be blamed for failing to plan for delays that he/she was aware of and should have planned for."

However, because this is a principle question, and we are looking for the answer that expresses a principle underlying the argument, the answer can (and likely will be) broader in scope than the specific details in the argument. In other words, the general principle doesn't need to specifically mention delays as long as the situation in the argument fits within the scope of the principle.

Here, my prephrase for a broad principle that would apply to this situation might be:

"Someone who fails to take steps to avoid foreseeable problems is partly responsible for those problems when they occur (and therefore is also to blame)."

While Answer A doesn't directly address the idea of responsibility/blame, I suppose it's implied (since the manager failed to do something that he should have done).

While questions worded this way are generally classified as Justify (Principle) questions, I actually would consider this an Assumption question, as the principle here is the "unstated rule" that the arbitrator is relying on in the arbitrator's reasoning.

[lsatstudent99966]

Hi lsatstudent,

You're right that:

"The gap that needs to be addressed seems to be: A manager should be blamed for failing to plan for delays that he/she was aware of and should have planned for."

However, because this is a principle question, and we are looking for the answer that expresses a principle underlying the argument, the answer can (and likely will be) broader in scope than the specific details in the argument. In other words, the general principle doesn't need to specifically mention delays as long as the situation in the argument fits within the scope of the principle.

Here, my prephrase for a broad principle that would apply to this situation might be:

"Someone who fails to take steps to avoid foreseeable problems is partly responsible for those problems when they occur (and therefore is also to blame)."

While Answer A doesn't directly address the idea of responsibility/blame, I suppose it's implied (since the manager failed to do something that he should have done).

While questions worded this way are generally classified as Justify (Principle) questions, I actually would consider this an Assumption question, as the principle here is the "unstated rule" that the arbitrator is relying on in the arbitrator's reasoning.

Hi Jeff,

Thank you so much for the explanation!

The only remaining question I have for answer choice (A) is, isn't the principle in (A) already stated in the stimulus' premise?

The last line of the stimulus already states that: "he was aware of the contractor's typical delay and should have planned for this contingency". This seems to express the same idea or principle stipulated in (A).

This makes me feel like (A) sounds like a premise booster, which is usually an invalid answer choice?

Thank you in advance!!

[Adam Tyson]

A principle is a general statement, in the form of a rule or a piece of advice. The stimulus gave us a specific instance, not a broad rule. The specific case is this manager, who is partly to blame because he should have planned for something he knew was a likely scenario. To strengthen this argument, we need a broader rule, like the one expressed in answer A, which is about much more than just this manager in this instance.

Think of it this way:

Premise: This manager knew this was likely to happen

Principle: Managers should take into account foreseeable problems

Intermediate Conclusion: This manager should have planned for this

Main Conclusion: This manager is partly to blame

The principle strengthens the claim that the manager should have planned for this situation, which in turn strengthens the claim that they are partly to blame for the problems that came from failing to plan.

[lsatstudent99966]

A principle is a general statement, in the form of a rule or a piece of advice. The stimulus gave us a specific instance, not a broad rule. The specific case is this manager, who is partly to blame because he should have planned for something he knew was a likely scenario. To strengthen this argument, we need a broader rule, like the one expressed in answer A, which is about much more than just this manager in this instance.

Think of it this way:

Premise: This manager knew this was likely to happen

Principle: Managers should take into account foreseeable problems

Intermediate Conclusion: This manager should have planned for this

Main Conclusion: This manager is partly to blame

The principle strengthens the claim that the manager should have planned for this situation, which in turn strengthens the claim that they are partly to blame for the problems that came from failing to plan.

Thank you Adam for the helpful explanation!