Self-study
A corporation created a new division. ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████████████ █████ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ████████
Each Worker Is Great, So the Division Is Great?
A corporation created a new division and staffed it by rigorously screening applicants. The people they selected were among the most effective, efficient, and creative workers the corporation had ever hired. The author concludes that the new division itself must be among the most effective, efficient, and creative divisions the corporation had ever created.
The flaw is a part-to-whole error. The author assumes that because each individual in the division has certain qualities, the division as a whole must have those same qualities. But that doesn't follow. A group of individually excellent workers could still form a dysfunctional division if, for example, their skills overlap too much, they clash with one another, or they lack a coherent structure. Individual excellence doesn't automatically produce collective excellence.
The Part-to-Whole Gap
👤
Worker A
✓ effective
✓ efficient
✓ creative
✓ efficient
✓ creative
👤
Worker B
✓ effective
✓ efficient
✓ creative
✓ efficient
✓ creative
👤
Worker C
✓ effective
✓ efficient
✓ creative
✓ efficient
✓ creative
↓
therefore...?
The Division
👤
👤
👤
? effective
? efficient
? creative
Great individuals ≠ great group
Anticipation
Since this is a Parallel Flaw question, we need to find an answer that commits the same part-to-whole error: concluding that a group has a property because each individual member of the group has that property. Specifically, we want:
- A premise establishing that each part/member has some quality.
- A conclusion claiming that the whole group therefore has that quality.
The flaw must be the same type, though the subject matter will be different.
25.
The flawed pattern of reasoning ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
In order to ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ███████ █████ █ █████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███████
This is a whole-to-part error, which is the reverse of the stimulus's flaw. The committee assumes that because a team is one of the best, the player selected from that team must be one of the best individuals. But the stimulus's flaw goes in the opposite direction: great individuals → great group (part-to-whole). (A)'s flaw goes: great group → great individual (whole-to-part).
b
Several salespeople were █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ ███ ████ ███████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████████
The boss interviewed one salesperson and found that person had exceeded the program's goals. From this, the boss concluded the entire incentive program was effective. This is a sampling flaw: generalizing from one case to the whole program. The stimulus doesn't generalize from a sample. It takes a property that every member has and attributes it to the group. That's a different logical move.
c
A law firm ███████ ██ ███ █ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████ █████ █ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████████████
This is tempting because it involves hiring people for a new department and concluding the department must be one of the best. But the firm didn't hire individually outstanding people. It hired people whose training and aptitudes matched those of other successful firms' staffs. The flaw here is assuming that copying the attributes associated with success will produce success. That's more like a correlation-to-cause error (these traits were present at successful firms, so replicating them will produce success) than a part-to-whole error. The stimulus's flaw is specifically about individual excellence not guaranteeing group excellence. (C) never establishes that each individual hire was among the best.
d
To put together ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ████ █████ ████ █████
This matches the stimulus's flaw precisely. The best players in the league were selected and split into two teams. Since each individual player on those teams was one of the best, the argument concludes that the two teams must be the best. That's the same part-to-whole error. Great individual players don't necessarily make great teams. A team's success depends on factors beyond individual talent, like how the players' skills complement each other, chemistry, coaching, and strategy. Just as great individual workers don't guarantee a great division, great individual players don't guarantee a great team.
e
Various schools chose █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ████ █████████ █ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ █████
A team won a tournament by earning the highest average score. The conclusion is that it was the best team. Whatever flaw exists here, it's not part-to-whole. The argument isn't taking a property of individual members and attributing it to the group.