LSAT 156 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Manager: I plan to put together a successful marketing …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The manager’s plan will succeed.

REASONING: Loosely bound groups perform better when they share a common purpose.

ANALYSIS: The manager is applying research that says: if a group shares a common purpose, then loosely structured teams can outperform tightly knit ones.

But look at the team the manager wants to build—people who prefer not to work closely with others. The argument just assumes that these people will still share and commit to a common purpose.

That’s the gap. The research only applies under a specific condition (shared purpose), and the manager never shows that this condition will be met. In fact, the type of people chosen might make that less likely.

So the flaw is ignoring whether the key condition required for the research to apply will actually hold.

___________

1. This is about confusing sufficiency and necessity, which isn’t what’s happening here. The issue is missing a required condition, not mixing up logical relationships.
2. The research is relevant—it just may not apply properly. So this misstates the problem.
3. The argument doesn’t claim loosely bound groups always perform better—it says they do under certain conditions.
4. CORRECT. This points out the exact issue: the team might not share a common purpose, so the research may not apply.
5. This introduces a distinction between types of goals, which the argument doesn’t hinge on.