Q22 - Lawyer: Did Congleton assign

[aygallego]

Hello,

Here is the explanation from for this question. The language of the question really through me for a loop!

The question is asking us to find the answer which does NOT accurately describe a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning. Of course I took this to be really confusing at first because the term flaw immediately makes me want to look for the answer with a flaw in the argument so once I read this correctly and noticed the EXCEPT word (I may always miss it), the answers that I first canceled out where:

A) we can see from the stimulus that the lawyer is assuming congleton knew the people she assigned would cause the project to fail and this is not necessarily the case, this is clearly a flaw so nix that.
C)Again we have the lawyer assuming congleton knew the people assigned to the project would cause it to fail somehow. same premise as A, nix it.
D)this to me was clearly a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning, he is assuming the witness can make the same inferences he is making, but last time I checked mind reading is not allowed on the lsat...nix it
E)Same situation as A and C just this time the lawyer assumes congleton intentionally created a work schedule that would cause the project to fail.
B)This one had me stuck for a while but if you notice that it is the only one that talks about the failure/success of the project .This is out of scope as the lawyer's reasoning that we have in the stimulus doesn't have to do with the project's failure or success but rather Congleton's selection of resources.

I hope this helps!

-----the road to a 180 is a long yet fruitful path!-----

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I'm glad to hear that you are finding the path to 180 fruitful! Good job fighting through this tough tough problem!

[LSAT-Chang]

Hmm.. For some reason I really don't understand this problem. It may be because I really haven't seen one of these "dialogue type (A:blah, B:blah, A:blah, B:blah,)" question in the past. Point at issue questions seem to be just two sides, but this one -- for some reason was very hard to understand.

What is the lawyer trying to get at here? I didn't see what his point was -- and I think that is why I didn't understand any of the answer choices and how it related to the argument since I didn't understand the argument fully. What is the lawyer's point? I don't know if he is believing that Congleton wanted the project to fail or if he's believing that the witness lied -- I'm so confuzzled.

Please help meeeee!

[elizabeth.r.casanova]

Hmm.. For some reason I really don't understand this problem. It may be because I really haven't seen one of these "dialogue type (A:blah, B:blah, A:blah, B:blah,)" question in the past. Point at issue questions seem to be just two sides, but this one -- for some reason was very hard to understand.

What is the lawyer trying to get at here? I didn't see what his point was -- and I think that is why I didn't understand any of the answer choices and how it related to the argument since I didn't understand the argument fully. What is the lawyer's point? I don't know if he is believing that Congleton wanted the project to fail or if he's believing that the witness lied -- I'm so confuzzled.

Please help meeeee!

This was tough for me also. Sometimes I have to put difficult problems like this into relatable terms, which is what I tried to do below. Hope this helps! Please provide any feedback or corrections to my interpretation of the problem.

I believe the lawyer has 2 parts to his argument:
1) Congelton did NOT want the project to fail because he had assigned the best people to work on the project.
2) The witness lied.


Assumes: if Congelton chose and assigned the best available people to the project, then Congelton could not have wanted the project to fail. The lawyer is ultimately equating assigning best available people = not wanting the project to fail.
---Yet, what if Congelton secretly wanted the project to fail? So, Congelton gives the team an impractical deadline and limited resources (Answer choice E). Even more, Congelton knows everyone of the people she assigned hates one another so much that they can't work well together due to constant fighting (Answer choice C). She has confidence that these limitations will ensure that the project fails. However, she doesn't want her boss to figure out her project failure motives because she could get fired for this manipulative act. Thus, she assigns only the best people to the project to make it look like she wants the project to succeed.

Assumes: Congelton was the person who chose to assign the best available people to the project.
---But what if Congelton wants the project to fail, so she wants to assign the worst available people? However, when she tells her boss her proposed list of people for the project, her boss gets angry and removes Congelton's empowerment for choosing the team. Then, the boss sends Congelton an email with a list of the best people available. The boss also instructs Congelton to notify and assign the people to the project, warning Congelton that if she assigns anyone who is not on the list, she will be fired (Answer choice A).

Assumes/States: The witness lied about Congelton wanting the project to fail (so gave a false statement with intent).
---Yet, what if the witness was actually telling the truth? Maybe the witness simply didn't recognize that assigning the best people could imply anything about Congelton's feelings/motives towards the project (Answer choice D)

B is the correct answer because the lawyer never discusses the possibility of failure. As Vinny said, this is completely outside of the scope of the lawyer's argument Even more, the possibility of the project failing is not dependent on Congelton wanting it to fail. The lawyer simply assumes that if Congelton wanted the project to fail, then she couldn't have assigned the best people (contrapositive of the 1st discussed assumption above).

Ultimately, I think this lawyer's argument nicely falls into the "limited evidence flaw" category.

[LSAT-Chang]

Your explanation is GREAT! I totally get the argument now. The two assumptions that you laid out in the beginning makes perfect sense -- I guess I didn't see that because I didn't know that the lawyer believed the witness to be lying due to the question mark in the last sentence. I thought the lawyer was just questioning the witness asking him/her whether he/she was lying -- but it makes perfect sense since the vibe we get from the lawyer's statement is like: "hmm yeah so you lied..." The way you explained this problem was just amazing since you provided the context for each of the answer choices which really helped me understand the assumptions/flaws. Thank you soooooo much!

[elizabeth.r.casanova]

My pleasure! So glad it helped.

[WaltGrace1983]

I am a little bit confused on how I should be looking for the incorrect answers (the flaws). Do I think to myself, "okay I am looking for answers that, even given the premises, the conclusion does not result?" So the conclusion would be that the witness lied, right? So I would be looking for answers that could open up the possibility that the witness lied - that Congleton really did want the project to fail?

Also, I have no idea what is going on with (D) and I am not really too sure about (B) can someone explain these in different terms please?

[syc4ey]

I'm a bit confused; it seems like answer (B) WOULD show a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning; it saying that the argument claims without warrant that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail. This mean's that the lawyer is making an assertion without providing a systematic line of premises to deliver his conclusion. Help Please!!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Interesting questions, WaltGrace1983 and syc4ey!

WaltGrace1983 , remember that arguments are often flawed simply because they assume things. So, when trying to identify a flaw, we're essentially trying to identify assumptions in the argument.

Notice the wording at the beginning of each answer choice. (A) and (B) both start with "It takes for granted that" - that's just another way of saying "the argument assumes". So, what follows that phrase should be a necessary assumption of the argument. We should be able to use the negation test to check these.

(C), (D), and (E) all begin with "It ignores the possibility that". When arguments assume things, they ignore the possibility that the assumption might not be true. So, what follows this phrasing can be thought of an an already negated necessary assumption. In other words, it brings up the 'what if' scenario that destroys the link between premise and conclusion.

I like your thought of

Do I think to myself, "okay I am looking for answers that, even given the premises, the conclusion does not result?"

I like to find assumptions by asking myself how I could live in a world where the premises were all true, but the conclusion didn't happen. That will show me the 'what if' scenario that destroys it, and from there I can see the assumption that is being made.

This argument is presented in dialogue, which makes it slightly more difficult to parse, but elizabeth.r.casanova began a very good breakdown. Here's the simplified core:

PREMISES:
Congleton assigned awesome people to the project.
Witness knows this.
CONCLUSION:
Congleton must not have wanted the project to fail.
Witness must have lied in saying otherwise.

But it's possible for Congleton to assign awesome people and still want the project to fail - if that were true, it would destroy this argument. It's also possible that Congleton wanted the project to fail but the Witness did not know/understand that - if that were true, it would destroy the argument that the witness lied.

So, the Lawyer is assuming:

1) if Congleton assigned the best people, she could not have wanted it to fail
2) the Witness knew and understood that.

(D) targets assumption #2. What if the Witness is an idiot, and genuinely believes Congleton wanted the project to fail even if all the evidence suggests otherwise? If that were true, then the Witness wouldn't be lying, he'd just be wrong.

(A), (C), and (E) all target the first assumption:

(A) What if she was forced to assign these awesome people? Then those assignments aren't evidence of whether she wanted the project to fail!

(C) offers a nefarious reason for assigning these awesome people - yes, they are individually awesome, but what if Congleton knew they would work terribly together? If that were true, then it's possible that she actually wants the project to fail, despite assigning awesome people!

(E) reminds us that assigning awesome people is not the only way to influence the success of a project. What if Congleton assigned awesome people, but sabotaged the project in other ways, like time/resources? If that were true, then it's possible that she could want the project to fail!

(A), (C), and (E) target a number of ways Congleton could still want the project to fail, even though she's assigned awesome people to it.



That leaves only (B), a conditional statement that translates as:
If project could fail then Congleton wanted it to fail. But nothing in the stimulus actually discusses the project failing! We don't know if it did fail, didn't fail, could have failed, couldn't have failed, will fail in the future - we know none of that! We only know that Congleton assigned awesome people and the Witness knew that.

This answer would be the assumption/flaw for an argument that said: The project failed, therefore Congleton must have wanted it to fail. But that's an entirely different argument!

So, (B) is a flaw for some other argument, but not this one!


I hope this helps clear up a somewhat unusual question!

[WaltGrace1983]

So the takeaway for this would be that, in a flaw problem, if we negate the "takes for granted/assumes/presumes" in an answer choice and the argument does not logically follow, then it is a flaw? Just like a necessary assumption? Similarly, if we simply consider the possibility of an "ignores/ignores the possibility of" answer choice and the conclusion does not logically follow, then it is a flaw?

So for example...

(A) "Congleton was forced to assign the people she did to the project" Well if that's the case then simply assigning top notch people doesn't mean anything about Congleton's intentions!

(B) "The project could fail in other ways besides Congelton wanting it to fail." This doesn't do much to the argument. We know that Congleton wanting it to fail would might make it fail but we don't really know anything else. Also, we only conclude something about "wanting" to make the project fail in this stimulus. We don't know anything about actually failing.

(C) "Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together." If this is the case, then we could probably infer that Congelton did want the project to fail after all.

etc.

I still feel like there is a gap between Congleton doing all this stuff and the lying though. To me, (D) is really the only one that sufficiently closes the gap. Even if we negate (A) for example, and say that "Congleton was forced to assign the people she did to the project," this still doesn't mean anything about the witness lying. It says that, from the premises, we cannot really conclude that Congleton wanted the project to fail BUT it doesn't adequately address the lying piece. What do you think?

I understand, as elizabeth said above, that the conclusion might be two parts. However, I feel like this is something we could infer from the answer choices...not exactly from the stimulus, which makes me wonder how we can truly KNOW the conclusion is two parts. I hope that makes sense. I'd be okay if the conclusion said, "So you lied to the court. Congleton wanted the project to fail!" This separates out the conclusion instead of making it all focused on the lie.

[christine.defenbaugh]

So the takeaway for this would be that, in a flaw problem, if we negate the "takes for granted/assumes/presumes" in an answer choice and the argument does not logically follow, then it is a flaw? Just like a necessary assumption? Similarly, if we simply consider the possibility of an "ignores/ignores the possibility of" answer choice and the conclusion does not logically follow, then it is a flaw?

All of this is GORGEOUS, and you should print it out in glittering font and frame it above your desk.

I'm fond of saying that flaw syntax comes in three essential flavors.
The argument is flawed because it:

1) takes for granted that [assumption]
2) fails to consider the possibility that [negated assumption]
3) commits [classic flaw type]

I still feel like there is a gap between Congleton doing all this stuff and the lying though. To me, (D) is really the only one that sufficiently closes the gap. Even if we negate (A) for example, and say that "Congleton was forced to assign the people she did to the project," this still doesn't mean anything about the witness lying. It says that, from the premises, we cannot really conclude that Congleton wanted the project to fail BUT it doesn't adequately address the lying piece. What do you think?

Hmm... that language, "sufficiently closes the gap". What does it remind you of? If you said "sufficient assumption", I'll fedex you a cookie.

Look, an argument can be riddled with flaws. Each one of those things is an independent flaw, but none of them, by themselves will make the argument work if you fix them. None of them can necessarily be expected to "sufficient close the gap" in the argument.

Stop looking for something that closes the gap if you fix it, and keep your focus on the things that screw the argument up.

I understand, as elizabeth said above, that the conclusion might be two parts. However, I feel like this is something we could infer from the answer choices...not exactly from the stimulus, which makes me wonder how we can truly KNOW the conclusion is two parts. I hope that makes sense. I'd be okay if the conclusion said, "So you lied to the court. Congleton wanted the project to fail!" This separates out the conclusion instead of making it all focused on the lie.

I'll make a confession: the first time I read this question, I totally didn't see the 'lying' part of the conclusion. I was focused entirely on the idea that the 'wanted it to fail' was coming from out of left field. I hunted down the three answers that addressed that issue first, then I was left with (B) and (D), both of which I had not read carefully.

Only at that point, on re-reading (D) did I realize that the 'lying' bit also required an assumption, separately from the other part of the argument.

It's not entirely necessary to see this argument has having two separate conclusion elements right from the jump. The more you see from the first read, the better off you are, but the answer choices can absolutely guide you toward something you may have missed the first time, provided that you already have a good sense of how to correctly assess the answer choice - without that, you're likely to get snowed by seductive wrong answer traps.

What do you think?

[WaltGrace1983]

Thanks for the tips! I may not get to the glittery fonts, but I'll for sure print this out and stick it in my binder!

[Mab6q]

Can B be read as mistaking the reasoning? If it read "It takes for granted that the C wanted it to fail only if it could fail", that translates to:

Wanted project to fail --> Project could fail.

It seems that the Lawyer is making this assumption, because he is giving all of these reasons why the project couldn't fail, but that doesn't mean the he didn't want the project to fail.

That's why I eliminated B, so I just wanted to make sure my logic was sound there.

Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. (B) is the correct answer, meaning that it is NOT a flaw with this argument.

When you say you eliminated it, you're saying you thought it WAS a flaw?

Or are you saying that (B) is just arranged in the wrong conditional order, but that it WOULD be a correct flaw if we tweaked the order?

In either case, I disagree.

The lawyer's case doesn't hinge in any way on whether or not the project ended up actually failing.

We're only trying to judge the truth value of this question:
"Did Congleton WANT the project to fail?"

(and for D, we're also judging whether it's fair to accuse the witness of LYING)

The project's outcome doesn't affect his DESIRED outcome, because his desire comes first chronologically.

The case here is simply whether it's plausible that someone who WANTED a project to fail would be assigning top notch people to the project.

Hope this helps.