June 2007, Logical Reasoning 2, Question 4
Transcript
Question four when a question asks you what criticism the reasoning and the argument is vulnerable to you were doing a flaw question. Flaw questions give you a bad argument, and they ask you to find the error in the argument. In order to find the arguments flaw, you have to understand the argument, which means identifying its conclusion and evidence.
Here the conclusion of this argument is helpfully flagged by the conclusory keyword so. So these corporations use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose. Now, we have to backtrack a little bit in order to know what corporations they're talking about.
The first sentence details that many corporations have begun decorating their halls with motivational posters in hopes of boosting their employee's motivation to work productively. So those are the corporations' whose use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose. As to why they're not gonna achieve their purpose, we have one piece of evidence.
Almost all the employees at the corporations that are putting up the posters, are already motivated to work productively. The error here is one that you're gonna see on a lot of LSAT questions. It's a scope shift, or a concept shift. In other words, the conclusion is about whether the posters are going to have their intended purpose.
The intended purpose being boosting their employees' motivation, but the evidence isn't about whether it's being boosted, just whether they're already motivated to work productively. Even if you're motivated, you could have your motivation boosted. So that's the error we're gonna look for in the answer choices, answer choice A. Remember, the conclusion of our argument was limited.
Just to these corporations, the ones that are using the motivational posters. What happens with corporations that don't use motivational purposes is beyond the scope of this argument. And since it's beyond the scope of the argument, it's not a problem to fail to mention it, so I answer choice B. Once again, the conclusion of our argument was limited to these corporations.
Not corporations in general. So it doesn't matter if these corporations are representative of corporations in general the argument isn't trying to prove anything about corporations in general answer choice C, this argument is only concerned With whether the posters have their intended effect. This answer is about other effects they might have.
Whether they have other effects isn't relevant to whether they have their intended effect, so C is not my answer. Answer choice D, so this argument is about the posters, whether they're other things that might affect the motivation doesn't really matter. The existence of other motivating factors would not be relevant to whether these posters are motivating things.
So answer choice D is not my answer. That means it must be E and E is what we were looking for. It points out the difference between being motivated already and the potential to have your motivation boosted further. But you can have your motivation increased even if you're already motivated. That's the problem with the argument so E is my answer.
Read full transcriptHere the conclusion of this argument is helpfully flagged by the conclusory keyword so. So these corporations use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose. Now, we have to backtrack a little bit in order to know what corporations they're talking about.
The first sentence details that many corporations have begun decorating their halls with motivational posters in hopes of boosting their employee's motivation to work productively. So those are the corporations' whose use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose. As to why they're not gonna achieve their purpose, we have one piece of evidence.
Almost all the employees at the corporations that are putting up the posters, are already motivated to work productively. The error here is one that you're gonna see on a lot of LSAT questions. It's a scope shift, or a concept shift. In other words, the conclusion is about whether the posters are going to have their intended purpose.
The intended purpose being boosting their employees' motivation, but the evidence isn't about whether it's being boosted, just whether they're already motivated to work productively. Even if you're motivated, you could have your motivation boosted. So that's the error we're gonna look for in the answer choices, answer choice A. Remember, the conclusion of our argument was limited.
Just to these corporations, the ones that are using the motivational posters. What happens with corporations that don't use motivational purposes is beyond the scope of this argument. And since it's beyond the scope of the argument, it's not a problem to fail to mention it, so I answer choice B. Once again, the conclusion of our argument was limited to these corporations.
Not corporations in general. So it doesn't matter if these corporations are representative of corporations in general the argument isn't trying to prove anything about corporations in general answer choice C, this argument is only concerned With whether the posters have their intended effect. This answer is about other effects they might have.
Whether they have other effects isn't relevant to whether they have their intended effect, so C is not my answer. Answer choice D, so this argument is about the posters, whether they're other things that might affect the motivation doesn't really matter. The existence of other motivating factors would not be relevant to whether these posters are motivating things.
So answer choice D is not my answer. That means it must be E and E is what we were looking for. It points out the difference between being motivated already and the potential to have your motivation boosted further. But you can have your motivation increased even if you're already motivated. That's the problem with the argument so E is my answer.
