Q4 - Cassie: In order to improve

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken (counter Melvin's argument)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Reducing client loads isn't feasible.
Evidence: It's already hard to recruit enough qualified agents, and reducing client loads would require recruiting even more agents.

Answer Anticipation:
Tough to prephrase here, but we have to address Melvin's concern about how hard it would be recruit more agents. There must be something we could do or say that would make Melvin feel better about our ability to recruit more agents.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This works! This is saying that if we were committed to reducing client loads, more agents would want to work here, since lower client loads would mean a less stressful job. Thus, we would find it easier to recruit qualified agents.

(B) This only speaks to DESIRABILITY of reducing client loads. We need to speak to our ABILITY to recruit more agents.

(C) Same as B. This is debating whether lower client loads is GOOD or DESIRABLE. Melvin agrees they're desirable. We're trying to counter his pessimism that we wouldn't be able to recruit more agents.

(D) This brings up an alternative plan, which is not a way for us to counter Melvin's objection and get the plan that Cassie is pushing for.

(E) This strengthens Melvin's pessimism.

Takeaway/Pattern: "Logically countering" person #2 almost always involves addressing his/her premise. We have to basically think, "Given that I want to still argue for the original position, how can I handle this Objection?" A lot of these correct answers are almost like logical judo -- we use the force of the person's objection against them. Oh, recruitment is a challenge? Well, Melvin, guess what helps lure more agents to our door: Smaller client loads!

#officialexplanation

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We have to keep in mind why it's not feasible to reduce client loads. It's not feasible because it's difficult to recruit enough qualified agents. Answer choice (A) states that they will be able to hire more agents and thereby attacks the reason Melvin gives for why it's not feasible to reduce client loads.

(B) is a good effort but falls short. Just because the clients support this doesn't mean it's feasible.
(C) provides a reason to reduce client loads, but doesn't tell undermine the idea that it's not feasible.
(D) tells us what to do if we can't reduce client loads, but doesn't tell us that we can reduce client loads.
(E) says that we can't reduce client loads, this strengthens the argument.

[chike_eze]

At first glance, I thought Cassie's rebuttal would provide an alternative way to reduce client loads. i.e., Melvin says to reduce client loads we must hire more agents, and Cassie says alternatively we could reduce client loads by being more selective in choosing customers to service. (reduce # clients serviced)

What's the flaw in this line of thinking?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Where do you see Cassie's rebuttal? I see Cassie say that we should reduce client loads, and I see that Melvin says that in order to reduce client loads it would be necessary to hire more agents, but where does Cassie offer a rebuttal?

[samuel.sanjeeth]

I see that B & C basically strengthen Cassie's argument rather than counter Melvin's which is why they are wrong. However, I still have a hard time understanding how A is countering Melvin's argument. How will reducing client loads help in recruiting new agents?

[dean.won]

I chose A simply because it was the simplest answer and i knew what tge argument was trying to do but i didnt like it too much.

Melvin says in order to reduce client loads they need more agents. But since they cant find more agents reducing client loads is not possible.

A says if they reduce client loads they can hire more agents.

But how are they supposed to reduce client loads in order to attract more agents?? A seems to only reverse the conditional that Melvin says but doesnt address his main issue!

Or am I missing something??

[shams.h.hirji]

This was my exact issue with this problem and why I found it so frustrating. Can one of the Manhattan tutors please respond to dean.won's point because I think he is hitting upon a real problem with this question.

[ccheng]

I'd be happy to share my thoughts on this.

One way we can weaken Melvin's argument is to attack his reason by exposing what he has not considered and this in turns makes his conclusion less likely - because the support for conclusion becomes doubtful.

Melvin's reason for his conclusion (i.e. reducing client loads is simply not feasible) is that it is very difficult to recruit enough qualified agents and recruiting more agents is necessary to reduce client loads. How do we attack Melvin's reason so that recruiting qualified agents is not difficult anymore? One possibility is to tell the candidates that our goal is to reduce client loads which can help improve the working condition of all agents in our firm (including yours if you join). This is likely to be an attractive reason for prospective agents to join if they have been slave driven in other firms

Therefore, Melvin's reason is less certain and conclusion is weakened.

Hope this helps.

[cwolfington]

EDIT

Melvins argument is: Reducing client loads->Recruit more qualified agents; and on the grounds that it's "simply unfeasible", he negates "Recruit more qualified agents", ergo he negates "Reducing client loads"

The diagram for answer choice (A) is: Reducing client loads->Improve working conditions->Recruit more qualified agents; and by introducing the "sufficient" condition, "Improve working conditions", answer choice (A) counters Melvins' grounds that it's "simply unfeasible" to "Recruit more qualified agents".

Thus (A),if true, adds a new logical condition between Reducing client loads->Recruit more qualified agents, which makes Melvins argument invalid, and is therefore the correct answer.

(B) is irrelevant because it does not affect Melvins argument. In fact, Melvin agrees with the many clients, as he says, "smaller client loads are desirable".

(C) is irrelevant for the same reason as (B), in that it does not affect Melvins argument. In fact, Melvin would agree with the studies, as he says, "smaller client loads are desirable"

(D) is irrelevant because, logically, it does not affect Melvins argument. The language used is attractive, but the diagram is: Hiring support staff->Similar to reducing client loads.

(E) strengthens Melvins argument by supporting his negation of "Recruit more qualified agents".

[insun802]

Hi ! This is my first time to upload my question. This stimulus makes me so frustrated.

Melvin said recruiting even more agents is out of question , so reducing client loads is simply not feasible.

However, according to correct answer (A), it weaken Melvin's argument by saying "reducing client loads would help recruit more qualified agents"

My question is this: Melvin said clearly that reducing clients loads is not feasible, but how come Cassie could say reducing client loads is helpful? It still did not solve the main issue "reducing client loads is not feasible'