Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 3 · Question 15

Incorrect. This answer seems to be describing an illegal reversal, so we should dig in deeper. When we do, we see that it's talking about being able to defuse tense situations. However, the argument doesn't reverse the relationship between defusing tense situations and understanding people—Ishiko meets that sufficient condition, and the argument seems to treat that as guaranteeing she also understands people. This answer brings up an illegal reversal of the wrong conditional!

Incorrect. This answer is using causal language, whereas the stimulus was conditional, so we can rule this out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Good manager → Understand people AND Defuse tense situations
Defuse tense situations → Understand people
Ishiko Ð Defuse tense situations
Therefore: Ishiko Ð Good manager

Answer Anticipation:
There's conditional logic all over this stimulus, and the argument tries to apply it to a specific situation, so we should expect either an illegal reversal, illegal negation, term shift between conditionals, or a failure to establish that the specific situation meets the sufficient condition of the conditional.

Looking at the argument, there's no term shift—the terms stay matching. However, Ishiko is established as meeting the necessary conditions (both—since defusing tense situations guarantees she also understands people), and then the argument concludes that she is a good manager—the sufficient condition. When a conditional concludes the sufficient condition based on the necessary, that's an illegal reversal. Let's find the answer that talks about confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary one.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the illegal reversal that the argument is committing. Ishiko is established as being able to defuse tense situations, which also guarantees she understands people—the necessary conditions for being a good manager. Based on this, the argument concludes that she's a good manager—i.e., those qualities guarantee she's a good manager.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional logic-based Errors in Reasoning questions will generally feature illegal reversals, illegal negations, or terms shifts. However, just noting that an argument commits one of these is often not enough to get the question correct—harder questions have multiple answers that will describe a conditional logic flaw. You'll need to analyze the answers by substituting in the specific concepts of the stimulus into the abstract answers to see if it correctly lines up.

Incorrect. The means by which managers defuse situations is out of scope of the argument since it's never mentioned. While the argument mentions that defusing the situation requires understanding people, that's not a method.

Incorrect. Whichever of the two qualities (defusing situations, understanding people) this answer is referring to, the premises establish that Michiko has it, so it doesn't assume that she does.