PrepTest 148

Incorrect. The argument doesn't care about whether they actually win—just whether the perception that they're better affects the performance of other workers.

Incorrect. The actual winner is out of scope of the argument—what matters is whether other employees are demoralized enough to have their performance affected.

Incorrect. In the situation described in the stimulus, many competitors didn't perceive the competition as winnable, so this answer doesn't apply.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Some managers Ð Pit employees against each other to maximize performance
Pivot Ð If one employee is clearly better, everyone else becomes anxious and doubts themselves
Conclusion Ð Pitting employees against each other can result in sub-maximal performance

Answer Anticipation:
First, note how we rephrased the conclusion. It referenced "the result it was intended to achieve," which was earlier defined as maximizing employee performance. In general, you want to remove phrases that refer back to ideas with the ideas themselves when thinking about conclusions on the LSAT!

With that in mind, we can see that the premise and conclusion overlap in discussion stiff competition between employees. However, the premise talks about certain competitors becoming anxious and doubting themselves, while the conclusion talks about certain competitors not performing maximally. That's a shift that will be connected in the correct answer—employees who are anxious or doubt themselves don't perform at their maximum.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the premise to the conclusion. If situations where one employee is viewed as likely to win a competition causes doubt in other employees, and that can decrease performance, then competition can backfire and prevent the maximization of performance.

Key Takeaway:
When conclusions refer back to earlier ideas, you should rephrase them to include those earlier ideas. It makes it a lot easier to see what concepts overlap between the premises and conclusion, allowing your anticipation to be more specific.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't suggest that anyone is intentionally undermining the performance of others—just that it happens when someone is believed to be the clear front-runner.