QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The company probably won’t boost motivation with the motivational posters.
REASONING: The employees are already motivated.
ANALYSIS: This argument misses the difference between being motivated, and increasing an already high level of motivation.
You’re motivated to study for the LSAT, right? What if I told you that if you got a good score, you would also get $10,000,000? You would be even more motivated, I’m guessing.
This is the different between an absolute level of motivation (93% motivated) and a relative increase in motivation (5% more motivated). Confusion between relative and absolute is common on the LSAT.
- I was tempted by this because I thought it was saying what E said (i.e. my prephrase).
But, I realized this answer is talking about companies that don’t use motivational posters. Whereas the stimulus is only talking about companies that already use motivational posters.
- The argument didn’t make any conclusions about corporations in general! It only made a conclusion about “these corporations”.
- The argument was only about motivational benefits. The author didn’t say “and clearly, the posters can’t have any other benefits”.
- The argument was only talking about “motivation to work productively”. The author actually wasn’t making any conclusions about employee productivity itself. (i.e. the actual work, rather than your desire to do it)
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. The stimulus focussed on whether employees were motivated. (i.e. 80 motivation points out of 100, or above). It failed to consider whether the posters might increase motivation (i.e. adding 5 extra motivation points).
Want advanced LR strategies? → Try the LR Mastery Seminar
Graeme shows how 170+ scorers do LR in real time. Satisfaction guaranteed!