LSAT Explanation PT 19, S2, Q1: Director of Ace Manufacturing Company: Our
LSAT Question Stem
The director's argument for rejecting the management consultant's proposal is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
Logical Reasoning Question Type
This is a Flaw question.
Correct Answer
The correct answer to this question is A.
LSAT Question Complete Explanation
The argument in the passage is structured as follows: The management consultant proposes a change in staff reassignment to increase productivity by fully exploiting available resources. The director of Ace Manufacturing Company argues that implementing this proposal would violate their policy of not exploiting workers. The conclusion of the argument is that the proposal should be rejected because it would cause the company to violate its policy.
An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Does the term 'exploit' have the same meaning in both the management consultant's proposal and the company's policy?"
This is a Flaw question, asking us to identify the flaw in the director's argument for rejecting the management consultant's proposal.
Answer choice (A) is the correct answer, as it identifies the flaw in the argument as failing to distinguish two distinct senses of the key term "exploit." The management consultant uses "exploit" to mean utilizing resources effectively, while the director interprets "exploit" as taking advantage of workers. The director's argument is vulnerable to criticism because it conflates these two different meanings of the term.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the argument does not defend an action based on its frequency. The director's rejection of the proposal is based on the perceived violation of company policy, not on how often such actions are carried out.
Answer choice (C) is not applicable to the argument, as the director does not define a term by pointing to an atypical example. The flaw in the argument lies in the confusion of two meanings of the term "exploit," not in the use of an atypical example.
Answer choice (D) is incorrect because the conclusion of the argument does not simply restate one of its premises. The conclusion is that implementing the proposal would violate the company's policy, which is not a premise of the argument.
Answer choice (E) is not relevant to the argument's flaw. The director does not call something by a less offensive term than the term that is usually used to name that thing. The issue is the confusion of two meanings of the term "exploit," not an attempt to use a less offensive term.
In summary, the director's argument for rejecting the management consultant's proposal is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds of failing to distinguish two distinct senses of the key term "exploit" (answer choice A). The other answer choices do not accurately describe the flaw in the argument.