#16 - Manager: I plan to put together a successful marketing team by choosing highly skilled,

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[nicizle]

Hi there,

I'm having difficulty regarding this question and how to approach it. I initially went with C, as I felt the manager was assuming that because a study suggests loosely bound groups function better, that this will be the case for their team. I'm still not fully understanding why C is incorrect, or why D is right.

Could you go over each of the answer choices and explain what makes each wrong or right? I confidently eliminated B and E, but that's as far as I got. I only left A as a possibility because I didn't fully understand what it was saying.

[Jeff Wren]

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.

[Moshe613]

I have trouble with this question for two reasons:
1. Suppose that there IS common purpose - the support used in the argument simply promised to work "better than tightly-knit groups" - this is only a relative advantage, not a promise that it will actually be effective. Yet the conlcusion in the argument is that the group is bound to work. The evidence doesn't purport to claim anything about what will definitely be effective
2. The possibility that the group members won't commit to a common goals is just that - a possibility. Why must I assume this possibility? Why is this not considered "external information"?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Moshe!

1) We can infer from the stimulus that there is, in fact, a common purpose, that being whatever marketing initiative the team is put together to complete. You're absolutely right-- just because one study shows that loosely-bound groups function better than tightly knit groups when a common purpose is shared does not guarantee that the manager's strategy is bound to succeed. That is why this argument is weak, and vulnerable to potential criticism.

2) The line of thinking in Answer Choice D is as follows: if the team is made up of highly independent individuals who do not like working as part of a closely knit group, they may also have difficulties committing to a common/shared purpose or goal. Since they are so independent, they may be more oriented towards pursuing their own goals, or using their own methods and not working in a cohesive manner. You don't have to assume this possibility, and it doesn't necessarily have to be true. When we are trying to weaken/criticize an argument, anything that casts doubt upon the purported conclusion can be helpful. Sure, maybe the independent team will work better, but maybe, as a result of their independence, they won't. That's all Answer Choice D is saying.

I hope this helps.