PT53.S1.Q18 - when a salesperson is successful

clarkerm

Hello- Hoping for some insight on question 18.

When I first began my LSAT studying journey, I found flaw questions to be very straight forward. They have unfortunately turned into a question where I often find myself second guessing on my AC.

I'd say flaw questions that ask what the author fails to consider are more challenging for me than one that says "what's the flaw".

Anyway- I am having a hard time seeing where AC B is right in this question. I'm formulating my error in choosing A was the fact that the stimulus accounts for longer than 3 years with the words "can eventually make a conformable living".

Help would be greatly appreciated

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-53-section-1-question-18/

inactive

Bumping this to the top! (Also edited title and added a link to the video so people can better find what you're asking about)

ajcrowel

Our salesperson mistakes what is sufficient for success in sales with what is necessary for success in sales. (Confuses necessary and sufficient conditions)

Basically our guy lays it out like this

Succeed in sales → 3+ years epx → Strong Client Base
A B C

The salesperson claims B is necessary for A, that's what's in contention. However strictly speaking C is what's necessary for A. What's actually needed is a strong client base, which one way of obtaining is by spending three years to develop. But while spending years of time is one way to develop clients you shouldn't think it's the only way. B is merely sufficient for C (i.e. we don't know its the only way to get C). Some personable folks will probably develop the client base in fewer than three years.

Think of this parallel argument

Any fox that survives the winter is sure to have eaten a mother goose. That's because it's certain mother geese provide enough sustenance for any fox to live through at least a year of cold and foxes must have enough sustenance if they are going to survive in winter.

See what I did there? The salesperson is doing the exact same thing

(If you don't see it right away think about it what it might take for a fox to get enough food to make it through winter. It's common sense that a fox could probably make it through winter if it ate 50 baby geese and no mother geese. So if that's the case, how can we be sure the fox in question ate at least one mother goose?)

A. This choice is wrong because the salesperson allows for this possibility. See the words "can eventually make" in the last sentence. (i.e. people who spend three years might not be immediately successful but it's certainly possible in the future).
B
C. This is irreverent. We only care about what is necessary for success, we don't care about what may be sufficient for lack of success.
D. This is a bad answer because it's meaningless. Yeah it may take longer. But the sales person said 3 or more years. What we care about is the claim that it takes at least 3 years.
E. This may be true but it's irrelevant. Who cares? Think about the foxes and the geese. Is that argument flawed because some foxes are bad hunters? No, it's flawed because the fox might survive despite not eating a mother goose.

Hope this helps!

extramedium

@morganrclarke said:
I'm formulating my error in choosing A was the fact that the stimulus accounts for longer than 3 years with the words "can eventually make a conformable living".

Having the same problem as you right now, but I think I can help with this one.

For me, the trouble with flaw questions involves the two steps to getting the right answer. You have to make sure the answer is descriptively accurate (that it is actually a flaw committed in the stimulus), and be sure that it is the MAIN flaw committed.

Second part is difficult, but it helps to take a wider look at the argument and see how the premises come together to support the conclusion. It also helps to look and see what type of argument it is (conditional, correlation/causation, survey/study, analogy, etc.), since there are common flaws for each type.

It gets a bit more complicated once you realize an argument can have multiple flaws, which is typically the case with 'fails to consider'. Overlooking a possibility/failing to consider can have nothing to do with an argument. It is likely that an argument will fail to consider many things and these will have nothing to do with the argument. Sometimes they actually won't even be flaws.

With this question, "can eventually make a living" is not the same as being a "successful salesperson," and that specific element about making a living isn't mentioned in the conclusion:

1. Salesperson successful-->Strong client base

2. In sales for at least 3 years-->Comfortable living in sales

Conclusion: Salesperson successful-->In sales for at least 3 years

Flaw: Assumes that to have a strong client base, you need at least 3 years in sales, that these 3 years are necessary. In the conclusion, there's an assumed connection between these two premises that is never raised in the stimulus. It's possible that there are other necessary conditions to develop a strong client base or that you could develop one in less than 3 years (that it isn't a necessary condition at all).

A. This isn't pointing out the assumed connection I stated above. /In sales for at least 3 years--->/Salesperson successful or Salesperson successful-->In sales for at least 3 years

B. /In sales for at least 3 years--->Strong client base. This is getting at the assumed connection I mentioned above. This is pointing out that it IS possible to have a strong client base without 3 years in sales. It is not necessary to have 3 years in sales to have a strong client base, which is basically what the conclusion here is saying.

B is saying, "What if this assumption that 'for a strong client base, you need at least 3 years' is wrong?

If you're successful, then you have a strong client base, which requires at least years 3 years in sales. It just pares it down to the first and last elements.

clarkerm

@ajcrowel @extramedium Thank you for the help! It makes a lot more sense. It might just be me, but I thought this was a more abnormal example of the 'confusing necessary/sufficient' flaw.
It was cemented in my brain with the fox example. Again thanks!!!

extramedium

@morganrclarke

Glad I could help. Good luck to you!