QUESTION TYPE: Complete the argument
CONCLUSION: Companies should focus on hiring good managers, rather than superstar salespeople.
REASONING: It’s hard to find natural superstars. But good managers can make a sizeable number of salespeople perform like superstars.
ANALYSIS: I think the conclusion is fairly straightforward. If you had trouble finding it, focus on the structural words. Rare = superstars are hard. But = “here is a contrast to what I just said”. So presumably, the author thinks managers are a solution to the rareness of superstars.
Note that the author has an implied premise: good managers are at least somewhat easy to hire. If that’s the case, then a company can increase the number of its salespeople performing at a superstar level by hiring good managers.
- This isn’t really true. Even if you’re not looking for superstars, you still need to evaluate salespeople to make sure they’re at least good enough.
- CORRECT. This follows the logic of the stimulus’ argument. Assuming good managers are somewhat easy to find, managers can lead to a higher number of superstar performances.
- This has no relation to the argument. The author didn’t say whether managers get less effective past a certain minimum of salespeople.
- False equivalence. the author didn’t say whether you need to be a superstar salesman to be a good manager.
- Nonsense. “Rewarding performance” refers to the salespeople. But the argument is implying we should focus on hiring good managers. So this answer refers to the wrong group.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions