Subscription pricing
Manager: I plan to put together a successful marketing team by choosing highly skilled, independent workers who prefer not to work as part of a tightly knit group. ████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████ ████████ █████ ████ ████ █ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ █████
Summarize Argument
The manager concludes that their strategy (choose workers who prefer not to work as part of a tightly knit group) will be successful. Why? Because when you combine a loosely bound group and a common purpose, that group will function better than a tightly knit group.
Identify and Describe Flaw
There are two big issues:
1) There’s a cookie-cutter relative vs. absolute flaw. The premise is comparative (this group functions better than that group), but the conclusion is absolute (strategy will be successful).
2) The recipe for the favorable outcome, i.e. a group functioning better, involves two elements: a loosely bound group and a common goal. The premises only (sorta) cover the first element.
Another issue related to this: having a group of people that resist tightly knit groups doesn’t ensure a loosely bound group. Loose and tight are not necessarily the only two group dynamic options. This is the false dichotomy flaw.
16.
The reasoning in the manager's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
presumes that factors ████ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████████████ █████████ ███ ███████
b
relies on research ████ ███ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ████
c
takes for granted ████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████████ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █████
d
overlooks the possibility ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████
e
confuses the goals ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████