Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 1 · Question 16

Incorrect. There's no indication from either speaker that personal bias played a role in Fremont's argument.

Incorrect. Both speakers discuss experience in the oil industry, so all experience discussed is relevant.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
F: Simpson has no background in the oil industry, so he shouldn't be CEO of Pod Oil.

G: Pod Oil's last CEO had experience but almost bankrupted the company, so you're wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a key shift here between the two examples that, if we noted early on, would make it a lot easier to see what the flaw is. Fremont's example is of someone without experience, and Galindo's is of someone with experience—that's a negation of the example, and so we should start by seeing if there's a shift from one of the speakers treating something as sufficient while the other treats it as necessary.

Looking at Fremont's argument, she states that someone shouldn't be considered for the role of CEO because they lack experience. In order to believe that a lack of experience is disqualifying for a position, it must be assumed that experience is a requirement for that position. As such, Fremont is treating experience as necessary for the role.

Galindo, on the other hand, states that experience (an industry background) is "no guarantee" of success—in other words, experience isn't sufficient for success. So in flipping Fremont's argument around, Galindo fails to respond to it. His counterexample isn't a true counterexample, and thus his response is flawed.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the negation made by Galindo's response. Fremont's argument assumes that relevant experience is necessary for the CEO of an oil company—someone without it shouldn't be a CEO. Galindo, however, raises that experience isn't sufficient ("is no guarantee") to make someone a good CEO. In misinterpreting what Fremont said, Galindo's response is flawed.

Key Takeaway:
When there are "dueling" examples, see if they differ in any key respects. If they do, there's a good chance that that key difference will highlight a flaw in any rebuttal.

Incorrect. Galindo never goes so far as to say that experience is irrelevant to success—just that it doesn't guarantee it.

Incorrect. A single example of experience failing to bring success would be enough of a basis to draw a generalization that experience isn't sufficient for success.