58.4.5 Company president: For the management

Accounts Playable

I changed my answer to A during BR since B-E are really bad, but I am not seeing how the company president "takes for granted " (assumes) what answer choice A states. Here is my breakdown:

For the new job, we are only going to interview people who have worked for the best firms. Therefore, when we choose someone, we will surely have selected one of the best people.

What I am looking for: This is a classic whole to part flaw. Maybe synergies or something creates the emergent property of being in the "top 1%." Also, is being in the top 1% even considered the best? What if the top 1% are very good, but only the top .01% are considered the best? The author's metric for "best" could be bad

Answer A: I confidently eliminated this one during the timed exam, which caused me to spin my wheels on B-E, which caused me to miss this one. During BR, I eliminated B-E first and chose this. But, I don't really understand where the author takes this idea for granted. To me, this isn't describing the "whole to part" flaw nor attacking the author's "best" metric. Specifically, the conclusion talks about "selecting one of the best." But, I don't see how this idea is limited only to the management consultants at top firms. Couldn't the author think that there are also some of the best at not top management firms? The author doesn't say anything to the contrary, so couldn't it be true? In my mind the word "only" is too strong; if this word was replaced with "sometimes," then I think this answer choice becomes more apparent. In other words, I just don't see where the author erroneously presumes this answer choice.

Additionally, say that there 200 firms. He is limiting is search to just the top 2 firms (the 1%). The company president makes no claim about people in the other 198 firms. Why couldn't a member of a top 4% firm be one of the best?

Answer B: What sample?

Answer C: This is what I chose during the timed exam, and the only reason I chose it was because I had to pick something (I had already eliminated A). This answer choice is backwards. It describes a "part to whole" flaw. If this answer choice were reversed, then I think it would work.

Answer Accepting? Irrelevant idea.

Answer E: Competent at every task? Irrelevant.

nye8870

@"Accounts Playable" Let me ask you this: What would you pick if this were a Sufficient Assumption question? And then what if ac(A) said just, “Only the best mgt consultants have worked for the top mgt consulting firms.” Wouldn’t this make the argument valid? If so, then the flaw in the prez’ argument is that he assumes this to get to his conclusion.
I think we’ll just have to accept that the top 1% of consulting firms qualify as top mgt consulting firms…whaddya gonna do?

Accounts Playable

@nye8870

I think I just misunderstood what A is actually saying. Is it addressing the whole to part flaw?

nye8870

@"Accounts Playable" Yes indeed. And you are correct that ac(C) states the opposite.