QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Defuse ➞ Good manager
REASONING: Good manager ➞ Defuse
Full reasoning: Good manager ➞ defuse and understand
Defuse ➞ understand people
ANALYSIS: This argument makes a basic conditional reasoning flaw. It mixes up sufficient and necessary. Managers need to be able to defuse, but that may not be all they need. Defuse isn’t a sufficient condition.
When you see conditional statements in a flawed reasoning question, you can assume they will be used incorrectly, and the answer will almost certainly be one that points out that flaw.
Of course, in recent years the LSAT has gotten harder. So on this question there are three answers that have sufficient/necessary language. So you must figure out where the flaw is and figure out which of the three answers describes it. Never blindly pick an answer based on keywords.
- This is a trap answer. The author’s error is stating Ishiko must be a good manager. “Understanding people” is the quality in the middle, and the author doesn’t say Ishiko has it.
- This is a tempting answer: “results from” indicates that something is a necessary condition. But the first part of this answer is wrong. “Correlates with” doesn’t refer to sufficient or necessary.
- CORRECT. This is correct. The conclusion is that Ishiko is a good manager. The reasoning is that this is because she can defuse situations, which is a quality necessary for being a good manager. It’s not sufficient.
- The argument didn’t say how Ishiko defuses situations, and it didn’t say how other managers defuse situations. An answer can’t be the flaw if it didn’t happen.
- The only quality the author incorrectly says Ishiko has is “good manager”. The author doesn’t say “Because good manager, ➞ other quality”.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly