Q15 - A good manager must understand

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Holy conditional logic, Batman! Lots of "musts" (necessary condition indicator) and an "anyone" (sufficient condition indicator) thrown in for good measure.

Good manager → Understand people + Defuse tense situations
Defuse tense situations → Understand people
Ishiko can DTS
___________________________________________________
Ishiko is a good manager

We also have a "must" in the conclusion, which is more an indicator of certainty/opinion than it is a conditional indicator - our conclusion isn't conditional. It's important to split the premise (Ishiko can DTS) from the conclusion (she's a good manager).

Answer Anticipation:
Illegal reversal! When an ID the Flaw question has conditional logic, dollars to donuts it's a conditional logic flaw. Generally, that's enough to find the answer (just look for the one that talks about sufficient/necessary conditions), but we're getting into the hard questions, so we may need to go a little deeper.

In this question, we have an illegal reversal on the rules for what makes a good manager - we know what's necessary to be one, but not what's sufficient to be one.

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) While this is talking about a conditional logic flaw (making it a trap answer), the answer refers to sufficient/necessary conditions for understanding people, while my argument confuses s/n conditions for being a good manager.

(B) You should hop out of this answer choice at "usually." The argument is conditional, so "usually" doesn't reflect what's going on.

(C) Bingo. Necessary/sufficient language, referring to qualities related to good management. We know that defusing tense situations is necessary for good management, but not that it's sufficient (if you can defuse tense situations but never do any other work, you probably won't be successful).

(D) Out of scope. When dealing with conditional logic, we only care about the terms themselves, not the methods of getting to those terms. As long as someone defuses a tense situation, that's good enough for the criteria established.

(E) Reversed. Another answer that brings up an illegal reversal! Another trap answer, because this answer says the argument goes from a premise about all good managers to concluding a quality that Ishiko has. However, the argument actually tells us that Ishiko has a quality of all good managers (that's our last premise), and concludes that she's a good manager. This answer describes an argument that flips the premise and conclusion of our argument.

Takeaway/Pattern: Usually, an ID the Flaw question with conditional logic can be answered without delving too much into the conditional logic. However, the harder questions will require you to pick between a few conditional logic flaw answers (here, A, C, and E). In order to do so, you'll need to understand the direction of the argument and the specific way the conditional logic is being confused.

#officialexplanation