ScholesFan wrote:Hi Powerscore,
I got this one correct, but I after reading the stimulus, I was expecting to find something different in the correct answer choice. Isn't the main flaw in the manager's argument that she appears to change the criteria for who deserves a bonus? The manager begins by saying that any productive individual deserves a bonus, but then she states that Liang shouldn't receive one because the larger group she works with wasn't productive enough, despite the fact that Liang herself was sufficiently productive.
Answer choice D definitely describes a flaw in the manager's argument, but isn't the shifting criteria a bigger flaw? I only ask because I want to make sure I'm understanding things correctly.
Thanks!
Hey ScholesFan,
Thanks for the question! You are in the right vicinity, but they actually play a tricky game in this problem, so let's look at it more closely since it provides an excellent example of how they can make you equate two ideas that are actually different while reading.
From a glance it may look like they switched criteria, but that didn't happen. Instead, they set it up so it's easy to
think they made that switch when the error lays elsewhere. So, we know that they are looking for "exceptionally productive" employees to receive bonuses. That's the criteria, and does that ever change? There's no evidence it does. As far as Liang, we don't actually know she's exceptionally productive, but they do a good job of tricking readers into thinking she is because they call her an "excellent account executive." While that's a great compliment, it doesn't mean that this year she was automatically exceptionally productive. She could have been, but we don't actually know for sure since excellent is not the same as productive, and this is where I think they caught you based on your statement that "despite the fact that Liang herself was sufficiently productive."
Instead, the manager assumes she isn't exceptionally productive on what basis? Her performance? No. Instead, it's her membership in a specific group (her corporate division) that happens to be low-performing in terms of productivity. Based on that, the manager assumes she's not exceptionally productive. From this perspective we have an Error of Division, or Whole-to-Part flaw where the property of the group is assumed to transmit to each individual member.
Also, from your username I take it you are a ManU fan? You must be pretty happy with the recent managerial switch then
