PT33.S1.Q22 - lawyer: did congleton assign the best available graphic artist to the project?

misty.m.giles

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-1-question-22/
Can anyone help me restate option B to better understand what it really says? I can't find anything that helps me understand this question.

Accounts Playable

This is a pretty strange question, and the LSAT doesn't have many questions presented as a dialogue.

We have to find the flaw in the lawyer's argument.

The lawyer is asking some questions about a project. Specifically, the questions seem to be about a project manager or designer (Congleton). The witness admits that C assigned the best/cream of the crop people to the project. The lawyer then concludes that the witness lied earlier when the witness said that C wanted the project to fail.

What I am looking for: Does the premise (C hired the best people) support the lawyer's conclusion (the witness earlier statement that C wanted the project to fail was a lie)? Not really.

What instantly popped into my head was the movie (and one of my favorite comedies) "The Producers" (the original one with Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, not the shitty remake with Nathan Lane). Essentially, the movie is about these con artists that want to put on the perfect flop play in order to scam investors. So, they go out and hire the "best" worst actors/directors. What if C did the same thing with the project? Sure, he hired the best people, but what if he knew they weren't going to work well together? 4 answer choices are going to point out a flaw while 1 isn't going to do anything.

Answer A: This is is a flaw in the lawyer's argument because it calls out one of the lawyer's assumptions: C actually chose the people. We know C assigned the best people to the project, but what if his boss forced him to do it? C can still want the project to fail.

Answer B: This is the answer via POE. Also, it just doesn't describe a flaw in the argument. This answer choice states "the lawyer assumes 'Project could fail---> C wanted it to fail.'" But, where does the lawyer imply this assumption? The lawyer isn't arguing whether or not the project can or cannot fail, but instead, whether the witness is lying. The lawyer doesn't care what conditions are necessary for a failed project; he is only trying to get C off the hook.

Answer C: This is what I anticipated. What if C knew the best of the best of the best were arrogant and unwilling to listen to each other?

Answer This is also a flaw. What if the witness just didn't add up the facts correctly? It's quite common for someone to believe something, but not believe in the consequence or inference of the belief. Maybe she actually wasn't lying, but was just a moron instead. Belief logic is about awareness/intent.

Answer E: This is also a flaw. Just because the lawyer established that the best people were assigned to the project doesn't mean that is alone sufficient to prove that C didn't want the project to fail. If this answer choice is true, C was trying to sabotage the project through other means.

MrSamIam

It assumes, without proper justification that the only way to make the project fail would be for Congleton to actually want it to fail. In other words, the lawyer is making a cruddy assumption that aside from Congleton wanting the project to fail, there are no other ways in which the project could fail.

In other words, the lawyer is not considering that the project could fail for reasons other than Congleton wanting it to fail.