LSAT Explanation PT 45, S4, Q25: Sarah: Our regulations for staff review

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following generalizations, if applicable to Sarah's company, most helps to justify her reasoning? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Strengthen question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. Sarah claims that the regulations for staff review are vague and difficult to interpret. She provides an example that the regulations state that unsatisfactory performance will lead to dismissal, but the regulations do not define unsatisfactory performance. Sarah concludes that this vagueness may result in some staff being dismissed due to conflicting personal views with their supervisors. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Regulations for staff review are vague and difficult to interpret.

Premise 2: Regulations state that unsatisfactory performance leads to dismissal, but do not define unsatisfactory performance.

Conclusion: Some staff may be dismissed because their personal views conflict with those of their supervisors.

To make this more accessible, let's use a simple example. Imagine a school's dress code that says students wearing "inappropriate clothing" will be sent home, but it doesn't define what "inappropriate clothing" means. This vagueness could lead to some students being sent home just because their clothing style doesn't match the personal preferences of the school administrator.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Are there any other guidelines or documents that define unsatisfactory performance in Sarah's company?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices. The question type is Strengthen, and we need to find a generalization that helps justify Sarah's reasoning.

a) This answer choice suggests that disciplinary measures are taken for performance that falls below expectations, but it doesn't address the issue of vagueness or the possibility of dismissal due to personal views. It may even weaken the argument by implying that supervisors have some leniency.

b) This is the correct answer choice. If supervisors have the sole prerogative to interpret the regulations, then they have the power to dismiss employees for any reason they see fit, including personal views. This strengthens Sarah's conclusion.

c) This answer choice supports the idea that employees are accountable for their performance, but it doesn't establish that supervisors could dismiss employees based on personal views. It doesn't strengthen Sarah's conclusion.

d) This answer choice focuses on keeping employees in control or withholding promotions, but it doesn't address the issue of dismissal due to personal views. It doesn't help justify Sarah's reasoning.

e) Whether employees consider specific regulations to be fairer or not is not relevant to the issue of supervisors dismissing employees based on personal views. This answer choice doesn't strengthen the argument.

In conclusion, the correct answer choice is (b), as it strengthens Sarah's reasoning by granting supervisors the sole prerogative to interpret the regulations, which could lead to dismissal based on conflicting personal views.