Self-paced
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 ████ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████████████ █████████ ███ ███████
The manager doesn’t give any sufficient conditions for success.
Also, the conditions that we are given (common purpose + loosely bound group) as collectively sufficient for a group functioning better than another aren’t presumed to be individually necessary for that same outcome.
b
relies on research ████ ███ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ████
The subject matter of the research (function/performance of a group) is relevant to the manager’s plan; the manager’s plan is to choose certain types of people for a group to achieve the outcome described in the research.
c
takes for granted ████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████████ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █████
The argument does not compare flexible teams to inflexible teams, and is not assuming what (C) describes. The research can be true, and yet, other factors influence inflexible teams to generally perform better than flexible ones.
d
overlooks the possibility ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████
The manager assumes that the group she is creating will have a common purpose, when it’s very possible that this group won’t have a common purpose. If they don’t, then they are not guaranteed to perform better than a tightly knit group, let alone be successful as concluded.
e
confuses the goals ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████
The manager’s goal is to have a successful marketing team, and the common goal/purpose shared by the team is undefined. The argument doesn’t confuse these things.