PrepTest 143

Incorrect. The Employee brings up a specific reason (a bad one, but a specific one) to question the Boss's judgment in this one case, so she's not assuming that the Boss is generally wrong.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Boss Ð You should have included more detail.
Employee Ð People can't focus when there's too much detail.
Conclusion Ð The Boss is wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
The Boss wanted "more detail", but the Employee is worried about "too much detail." That jump from a relative amount of detail to an absolute amount ("too much" is an amount over a specific threshold) is a major jump in the reasoning here. If you go to a good restaurant, you can want more food without wanting too much.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump from discussing "more" of something to "too much" of something.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument uses relative terms—more/less of something, or words like taller, faster, stronger—see if it jumps to an absolute term. It's a common flaw on the LSAT, and one that can be easy to miss since we see the word related to the absolute term. E.g., if one basketball player is taller than another, we see the word "tall" in there and associate it with the players, even though the two could be 4' and 4'1" based on that statement alone.

Incorrect. The Employee was only concerned about the Boss's feedback on the level of detail in the presentation, so other causes of a loss of focus are out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is that the Boss is incorrect in the assessment of this one presentation—that's not a generalization.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the Employee is imagining something other than specific info and data around profit projections when she talks about focus, so this answer is incorrect.