Q1 - Carl is clearly an incompetent

[demetri.blaisdell]

This is a weaken question. First step is the argument core.

Carl solved the smallest percentage of cases on the police squad ---> Carl is an incompetent detective

Quick look for a gap: this argument is not very nice to Carl. Maybe Carl has the "cold case" files or he only gets the hardest cases.

(A) gives us exactly what we thought we'd find. The reason Carl doesn't solve very many cases is he gets the hardest ones (specifically, the ones other detectives already tried and failed to solve).

Now the wrong answers:

(B) is out of scope. We have no idea whether being a good neighborhood cop makes someone a good detective.

(C) actually strengthens the argument. Carl had that awesome computer database and he still couldn't solve any crimes. Send him out to give parking tickets!

(D) also strengthens the argument. Carl doesn't just suck at solving crimes now... he's always sucked at solving them. Maybe it's time for a mid-life career change.

(E) seems out of scope but might slightly strengthen the argument. If all the other detectives are new and Carl still has the lowest percentage, he really is an incompetent detective.

I hope this helps. If you still have a question after reading this, post away!

Demetri

[WaltGrace1983]

Just wanted to point out something that I was thinking about too here. The premise is talking about something RELATIVE and the conclusion is talking about something ABSOLUTE. If this were a flaw question, that may be really important. No need to respond to this or anything but I always try to think about the logic of the question in general, sometimes unrelated to the question stem. Even in my limited time of prep I have noticed that the same types of questions/logic comes up frequently but with swapped subjects and question stems.