Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 2 · Question 8

Incorrect. The argument doesn't jump between outcomes to a determination about productivity (e.g., jumping from "Liang's division released fewer products than any other division" to her division being less productive). Since the conditional and the premise both talk about productivity, there's no gap here.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about productivity, not profitability, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument draws a conclusion about an individual based on the performance of a group she's a member of, not about a different group, so this answer doesn't describe the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Should receive bonus → Exceptionally productive
Liang's division wasn't exceptionally productive
Therefore: Liang shouldn't receive a bonus

Answer Anticipation:
First, note the diagram of the conditional. "The only" is a tricky conditional phrase, but the short version is it introduces a sufficient condition. That's how we ended up with the conditional that we have there.

Looking at it, it does justify a conclusion that someone shouldn't receive a bonus through the contrapositive:

not Exceptionally productive → Shouldn't receive bonus

So the flaw here isn't an illegal reversal or negation. When that happens, in general, the flaw is related to the premise not establishing the sufficient condition. And that's what happens here. In order to conclude Liang shouldn't receive a bonus, the argument must establish that she wasn't exceptionally productive. What is established is that her division wasn't exceptionally productive. So this argument is jumping from what is true of her division to what is true of her—a whole-to-part flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer describes the whole-to-part flaw that the argument commits—jumping from a premise about the performance of the group as a whole (the division) to a conclusion about one member of the group (Liang).

Key Takeaway:
Generally, when conditional logic is present in an Errors in Reasoning question, the flaw is an illegal reversal or negation. When that doesn't happen, there's a good chance that the argument will fail to establish the sufficient condition is present. Here, that's what happened, but it was done through a specific flaw—jumping from a group to a member of the group. Any time you see language about a group of people (e.g., "division" here), you should think about whether there's a jump between a member and that group.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't project into the future, so this answer is out of scope.