Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 4 · Question 5

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
We're only interviewing candidates from top firms, so whoever we hire will be a top consultant.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is about the individual who this company will eventually hire. They believe that candidate is guaranteed to be one of the best out there. Why do they believe this? Because this candidate has worked for a top firm. So the President is relying on the reputation of the firm that this individual worked for to make a determination about their abilities as a consultant. That's a jump from a whole—the top firm—to a part—the individual who worked there—and it assumes that something true of the firm (best in class) is also true of that worker (also top notch). It's just as possible that this person was a mediocre or even bad worker (which is why they're looking for a new job!).

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice highlights the whole to part jump made by the argument. It assumes what is true of the whole (top firm) is also true of the parts of that firm (top consultants).

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that bring up groups of individuals should trigger a thought of composition flaws—when an argument jumps from information about the whole to information about the individual parts, or vice versa. Companies, teams, societies, citizens—all of these can lead to a jump where the characteristics of the whole are then attributed to each member.

Incorrect. In stating that the firms are in the top 1% worldwide, the argument doesn't generalize from that small sample but rather compare all the firms against each other and rank them from top to bottom.

Incorrect. So close! This is the part to whole answer, where the characteristics of each element is said to determine the characteristics of the whole. However, this argument jumps from a premise about the firms to a conclusion about the individuals who worked there, so it's a whole to part jump instead of a part to whole one.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about selecting someone, not actually getting them to accept the offer and show up for work. If the conclusion jumped to "we can be sure to employ . . . " then this answer would be in contention.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the worker, not the work, so there's no assumption made about the tasks they are competent at.