PrepTest 157

This doesn't even strengthen the argument, so it can't be necessary to the argument either.

The conclusion asserts that drinking more coffee than usual "impairs" overall management ability. That's a relative claim — drinking excess coffee decreased each manager's ability from where it started. So, it doesn't matter that the managers' abilities weren't all the same. It's perfectly acceptable if some managers' abilities had different starting points or if coffee affected some managers more than others. As long as drinking excess coffee made their abilities worse, the psychologist can still draw the conclusion.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we're using a negated and simplified form of answer choice (A)):

"A study gave coffee-drinking managers even more coffee. The managers processed information faster but had trouble incorporating it with past information. Successful management depends more on incorporating new information than speed. But, the managers did not differ in their speed or ability to incorporate new information. So, the study doesn't prove that drinking more coffee than usual decreases overall management ability."

This argument doesn't make much sense. The "But" part doesn't really conflict with the previous claims that the managers processed information faster but had trouble incorporating it with past information. Rather than contrasting with that evidence, the "But" part just adds to the information. The managers got faster but had trouble incorporating new information ... and now their speeds and ability to incorporate information are all the same. The "But" part should form a natural contrast with the previous statements if an answer choice is going to pass the backup test.

Moreover, the "But" part doesn't show that drinking more coffee improves overall management ability. If the managers are now all worse at an important part of their job, it seems more reasonable to conclude that drinking more coffee decreases overall management ability.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (A).

This answer choice doesn't strengthen the argument, so it's not necessary to the argument, either.

The psychologist's conclusion is only about drinking more coffee than usual. The psychologist doesn't make any claims about drinking less coffee than usual, so this answer choice is irrelevant to the argument. After all, even if drinking less coffee than usual was just as bad as drinking more coffee than usual, it could still be true that drinking more coffee than usual impairs one's managerial abilities.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we're using a negated and simplified form of answer choice (B)):

"A study gave coffee-drinking managers even more coffee. The managers processed information faster but had trouble incorporating it with past information. Successful management depends more on incorporating new information than speed. But, drinking less coffee than usual would impede a manager's overall management ability as much as drinking more coffee than usual. So, the study doesn't prove that drinking more coffee than usual decreases overall management ability."

This argument doesn't make much sense. In fact, the "But" concedes that drinking more coffee than usual does, in fact, "impede a manager's overall management ability," which would "prove that drinking more coffee than usual decreases overall management ability."

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (B).

This answer choice is very tempting! This definitely strengthens the argument. If there are no factors more important to management than speed and incorporating new information — and incorporating new information is more important than speed — then it seems much more likely that making managers worse at incorporating new information means that drinking excess coffee decreases overall management ability.

But the next question is whether this information is necessary to the argument. And this answer choice uses a SCOTUS-y phrase — the superlative "no other factor more important .... than" — that we don't like to see in a Strengthen with a Necessary Premise answer choice. And that phrase makes this answer choice a bit too boldly worded to present a necessary piece of information. Even if there are factors more important to business management than speed and incorporating new information, this psychologist could still draw this conclusion.

Let's suppose that the most important factor in successful business management is always starting an email with "I hope this email finds you well." Incorporating new information and speed are the second and third most important factors, respectively. Let's also suppose that drinking too much coffee didn't impair any manager's ability to start emails with "I hope this email finds you well." In that case, the excess coffee would still make the managers worse at management, even if it didn't affect the most important part of their job. The excess coffee would still make them worse at the second most important factor.

After all, the issue isn't whether speed and incorporating new information are the most important skills. The issue is whether decreasing their ability to incorporate new information is enough to guarantee that overall management ability is worse. We don't need to know that incorporating new information is the most important factor. We just need to know that excess coffee didn't improve enough other factors to outweigh its detrimental effect on incorporating new information. And this answer choice doesn't tell us that.

Alternatively, we can also evaluate this answer choice using the backup plan. Here's the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we negated and simplified this answer choice to make this easier to read):

"A study gave coffee-drinking managers even more coffee. The managers processed information faster but had trouble incorporating it with past information. Successful management depends more on incorporating new information than speed. But, there may be factors more important to management than speed and incorporating new information and speed. So, the study doesn't prove that drinking more coffee than usual decreases overall management ability."

This, admittedly, doesn't sound bad. However, it still runs up against the problem we identified earlier in this answer choice's explanation. Even if there might be more important factors, we don't know how excess coffee affects those factors. If excess coffee might harm those factors, the study may still prove that drinking more coffee than usual decreases management ability.

Therefore, no matter which approach we used, we can eliminate (C).

Let's go. This answer choice strengthens the argument. It's also necessary to the argument.

As we anticipated, this answer choice strengthens the argument by showing that excess coffee's benefits don't outweigh the harm done by decreasing one's ability to integrate old and new information. This definitely strengthens the argument, as it shows that any benefits that excess coffee may bring to the table will still be negated by the reduced ability to integrate new and old information. This will help the psychologist draw the conclusion that excess coffee impairs overall management ability.

This is also necessary to the argument. If drinking more coffee than usual had benefits that outweighed the reduced ability to incorporate new information, then the psychologist couldn't conclude that excess coffee impairs overall management ability. In that case, the psychologist would have to conclude that excess coffee improves management ability. So, the psychologist needs this answer choice to be true to draw their conclusion.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we're using the negated and simplified version of answer choice (D)):

"A study gave coffee-drinking managers even more coffee. The managers processed information faster but had trouble incorporating it with past information. Successful management depends more on incorporating new information than speed. But, the study also shows that drinking more coffee than usual produced benefits that outweighed the reduction in managers' ability to incorporate information. So, the study doesn't prove that drinking more coffee than usual decreases overall management ability."

This argument makes sense! The "But" part forms a clear contrast with the information that came before it, and the conclusion follows naturally from the "But" part. Yes, excess coffee harmed the managers' ability to incorporate information. Buuuuuut, excess coffee's benefits outweighed that downside. So, excess coffee may not decrease overall management ability. This argument sounds like a well-written, cogent paragraph. So, (D) passes the backup test.

No matter our approach, we can confidently select (D).

This doesn't strengthen the argument. Therefore, it's not necessary to the argument either.

This answer choice doesn't strengthen because it doesn't tell us about coffee's effect on incorporating information or any other factor related to management ability. We already know that excess coffee increases speed. But we also know that speed is less important than the ability to incorporate information, which excess coffee harms. So, this answer choice doesn't tell us whether excess coffee produces other benefits that outweigh its harmful effects. Without knowing that excess coffee doesn't produce other benefits, we can't convincingly argue that excess coffee harms overall management ability.

Moreover, this answer choice uses a SCOTUS-y "the most" phrase that we don't like to see in a Strengthen with a Necessary Premise answer choice. That gives us yet another reason to eliminate (E).

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we're using a negated and simplified form of answer choice (E)):

"A study gave coffee-drinking managers even more coffee. The managers processed information faster but had trouble incorporating it with past information. Successful management depends more on incorporating new information than speed. But, the amount of coffee one drinks is not the most important factor influencing the speed at which one processes new information. So, the study doesn't prove that drinking more coffee than usual decreases overall management ability."

This argument doesn't make much sense. The "But" part doesn't really conflict with the previous claims that managers had trouble incorporating new information or that successful management depends more on incorporating new information than speed. Rather than contrasting with that evidence, the "But" part starts talking about speed again. The "But" part should form a natural contrast with the previous statements if an answer choice is going to pass the backup test. Moreover, it doesn't suggest that the increases in speed outweigh the downside of excess coffee. So, the "But" part doesn't support the conclusion, either.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (E).