Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 4 · Question 8

Incorrect. The stimulus discusses talented managers, not managers at different ranks. There's no indication that there's a relationship between those two characteristics (as anyone who has worked at a giant corporation can attest to!).

Incorrect. First, if anything, this answer downplays the importance of new product lines, cutting against the argument. That said, it talks about the "expenditure" on new products, not how important they are to profitability.

Incorrect. The interest of the managers is out of scope—what matters is what companies should do, and the managers' interests aren't established as a factor in that. It's also not established that managers have different success rates on projects based on their level of interest!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
New products critically need talent, but their short-term prospects don't justify it. So the best managers are assigned to established products, causing most new products to fail.
Recommendation - The best managers should be assigned to new products

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here makes a recommendation ("should"). Whenever an argument concludes a recommendation, it needs to establish the criteria/goal for making a decision, and then show that the course of action recommended will best help reach that goal.

Here, the argument does show that the recommendation will have an effect—it should increase the likelihood that new projects succeed. However, it never establishes that that is the relevant criteria—maybe it's best for the companies if established brands do well, even if that means new products tend to fail! The goal of the company is to maximize profits, and it's not shown that the shift in focus recommended here will achieve that.

Since the argument assumes that the goals of these companies (making money) is best served by focusing on new products, anything supporting that will serve to strengthen the argument.

Answer Explanation:
While this answer doesn't directly establish the success of new product lines as a goal, it does suggest that the recommended action won't hurt the profitability of established lines. If it's not hurting established revenue, and it could help new revenue streams, then this answer establishes that the recommended course of action does align with the companies's goals, thus strengthening the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that build to a recommendation need to establish a goal, and they need to show that the recommended action best helps achieve that goal.

Incorrect. The argument wants to invest talent in new products despite "short-term revenue prospects" disproportionate to the talent they require. As such, the argument assumes that these prospects don't fully reflect their potential, so this answer cuts against the argument.