Q25 - A corporation created a new division

[lichenrachel]

I chose C instead of D because the fact that D includes "two teams" made me eliminate the choice. I don't understand how D is a better answer than C. Could someone explain it to me?

Many thanks!

[bbirdwell]

To see that D is better than C it's necessary to understand the original flaw. Then all you have to do is find the best match.

So what's the original flaw?
Company hires some of the best people ever for a new department, therefore the department is the best ever.

The flaw is the assumption?
a group of some of the best people = best group of people

(C) doesn't satisfy the first part of the flaw because it doesn't say that the firm hired the best people. It says that the firm hired people with "training and aptitudes" as much like other successful firms' people as possible. This is not the same thing, and thus not a good match.

(D) says each player on the teams is one of the best, and it must follow that that the teams are the best. This is a perfect match.

[LSAT-Chang]

(C) doesn't satisfy the first part of the flaw because it doesn't say that the firm hired the best people. It says that the firm hired people with "training and aptitudes" as much like other successful firms' people as possible. This is not the same thing, and thus not a good match.

Hey Brian, but doesn't it say "To obtain the best employees it could" that is why I chose (C). I wouldn't have chose it if that wasn't there, but I was also debating between (C) and (D).. is it solely because there is no evidence that they DID in fact choose the "best employees"? They could have just tried to obtain the best employees but ended up not getting the best ones out there?

[austindyoung]

Just to throw it out there, earlier in this section 47-1-21- there is another parallel flaw question where the correct AC has two subjects instead of one, like the stimulus. However, it is correct since it was the only AC with the actual flaw.

I guess if you arrived at the ACs and saw two with the same flaw as the stimulus, then you get picky on those other details. But we have to find the flaw first.

I picked (C) on this one as well BTW, so not trying to preach

EDIT: BTW, I think this is a great example of the LSAT throwing out an attractive answer earlier on, so that when we read the other ACs (which probably contains the correct answer, in this scenario) since we already found something attractive we let our mental faculties slip and flippantly reject the other ACs without really reading what they say- "two subjects- NEXT!" which is what I did because I liked (C). Most likely with tricker questions, they are priming the pump for this to occur, especially later in the section when we are getting tired.

[shodges]

What about (B) in this example? Isn't the flaw here that a particular subset of a group (of people in a program) is used to show that the program was effective?

[maryadkins]

The flaw is that all of the elements having a certain quality doesn't mean that the whole-made-up-them has that same quality. Viewed this way, (B) lacks this aspect and just focuses on one of the salespeople in the program.

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the helpful insights so far. I was working through this problem in the Manhattan "grouped by question type" book and found it to be particularly tricky.

I ultimately discarded D because the conclusion seemed to be a lot more definitive than the one in the stimulus. Answer choice D says "it follows that the two All-Star Teams ARE THE TWO best teams this year," whereas the stimulus says "the new division must have been AMONG the most effective..." Though I agree that Answer Choice C was not an exact match, I went with it because the conclusion seemed to offer more of a hedge like the stimulus by saying "the law first must have created ONE OF the best family-law departments." Can someone point out whether my analysis is incorrect or if the problems pointed out in C outweigh this point?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi redcobra21, the technique you're using is useful, but not primary. Sometimes there are peculiar structures within an argument that you can use to eliminate answers choices that do not contain the same peculiar structure. However, the goal is to match the reasoning that underlies the argument and so these peculiar structures are only secondary--quicker to use if you can, but less important.

In this case, we need to match the parts to whole issue underlying the argument. Just because the members of the group are effective, efficient, and creative does not ensure that the division composed of those members will also be so. Answer choice (D) contains the same issue. Just because the players are the best, does not mean that teams on which they play will also be so.

Incorrect Answers
(A) moves in the wrong direction. THis seems to suggest that the individuals will possess a certain characteristic, just because they come from groups with a certain characteristic.
(B) moves from one member of a group to the group itself, when it should have moved from all members of a group to the group.
(C) moves from a group to a group. It says the staff had a characteristic, so the department did as well. But "the staff" refers to a collective, not to a series of individuals.
(E) assumes that having the highest average score implies that the team is the best. This may or may not be true, but this does not contain a parts to whole issue.

#officialexplanation

[Amontillado]

I love the explanations above. However, I think we actually cannot reject (C) merely based on these explanations (i.e. "having training and aptitudes" itself does not equal to "the best", or a "group to group" relationship stated above). (C) clearly says "to obtain the BEST employees". Also, (C) uses the word "staff" just like the stimulus does. NO PROBLEM SO FAR.

Now let's see what makes (C) wrong:

It indeed is looking for the "best employees it could". However, it is THE WAY IT LOOKS FOR ITS EMPLOYEES tells us that it is maybe not a good match!

It is merely TRYING to "obtain the best employees". Does it really obtain the best employees? WE DON'T KNOW. "Several other firms well known to successful staffs" based on which this firm emulates DOES NOT equal to "the best firms". Maybe there are much better firms out there having really the BEST lawyers with different types of credentials and compositions that this firm does not emulate.

So, maybe this firm is not actually having the best individuals. We don't know. So it is not a good answer choice matching the "best individuals-->best group" relationship of the stimulus.

Please correct me if I'm wrong : )