#14 - Obviously, entrepreneurial ability is needed to start

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method- Argument Part. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[kev2015]

Hi,

I am having trouble understanding the correct answer for #14 (Dec. 2015, LR section 2). I have eliminated A) and C), and I have originally chosen D) as the answer, then when I know I got it wrong, I choose B) as the second attempt. However my answer was still wrong. I know that the answer is E), but I don't really understand why. How are B) and D) wrong, and E) correct?

Thanks a lot in advance for the help!

[Jon Denning]

Hey Kev,

Thanks for the question! This is a Method of Reasoning—Argument Part question, meaning we're tasked with identifying exactly what role in the argument "the proposition that certain entrepreneurs fail in managing company growth" plays.

To do this, let's break down the argument into its component parts, and in doing so figure out the function of that statement. The conclusion here is the last sentence, which begins with "Hence": the lack of managerial skills and the lack of entrepreneurial ability can each inhibit the development of successful companies.

Why does the author believe that? Well, the first sentence tells us that entrepreneurial ability is necessary to start a successful company, and the next two sentences establish the necessity of managerial skills (including an example of how mismanagement might prove harmful).

The sentence in question here is sentence #3, the specific example of mismanagement: not adequately analyzing market trends and thus failing to manage company growth. So to describe the role of that example we need an answer choice that notes it is (1) an example (2) of the premise about the need for managerial skills that (3) supports the conclusion, then we're in good shape!

So as we look at your contender answer choices—(B), (D), and (E)—we can see right away how (B) and (D) fail. (B) is the better of those two, but still slightly inaccurate: it is an example, but not "of the phenomenon the argument seeks to explain." For that to be correct, the sentence in question would have to provide an example of a company failing to be successful due to the two-fold issues raised in the conclusion (lack of management, lack of entrepreneurial ability). It doesn't do that though, so (B) is out.

(D) can be eliminated even more easily, since the sentence referenced isn't itself a premise, but rather a specific example of how one of the premises might play out.

The correct answer, (E) gives us exactly what we need. It tells us the sentence is an example (check), in support of a premise (that lack of managerial skills can impede successful business development; check), that supports the conclusion (the last sentence; check). So that's a much better description than those provided by the other, incorrect answers.

I hope that helps to clear things up!

[Kristintrapp]

Hi,

For this question, I successfully eliminated A, B, and C, but chose [incorrect] D over correct answer, E.

I noticed in section 2 of this test, on question 17, I made a somewhat similar mistake, so I'm hoping to clear it up.

The mistake I think I'm making is that sometimes, in a Method question, if the stimulus contains an analogy or example, I'm unsure if the correct answer must explicitly state that there was an analogy or example, or could it be instead referred to as a "premise" (?)

My question is this: would it be acceptable to say that examples and analogies are not premises, and instead, they are supporting details that are used only to support premises? Could I have eliminated D. simply because it didn't explicitly state that it was an example?

I identified that it was an example, but incorrectly thought that that could be blanketed as a premise. So I selected D., because I felt that as an example, it was a premise, that supported the conclusion.

Nonetheless, after reviewing the question and answers, I do still fully understand why E. is a better choice. I'm just trying to understand if in the future I can eliminate answers that don't state an analogy/example as an analogy/example. Can they also be called premises in themselves?

I hope this makes sense! Thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Kristintrapp!

Happy to try to help bring some clarity to this one. Let's start with unpacking (E): "It is an example that is offered in support of a premise that is intended to support the argument’s main conclusion directly."

The "example" in (E) is "the proposition that certain entrepreneurs fail in managing company growth," which is used in support of the premise that many entrepreneurs who succeed in starting a business end up failing for lack of managerial skills. And that, in turn, is used to support the main conclusion, starting at "Hence,..."

To your first question,

My question is this: would it be acceptable to say that examples and analogies are not premises, and instead, they are supporting details that are used only to support premises? Could I have eliminated D. simply because it didn't explicitly state that it was an example?

I think the problem with (D) is the "directly" language--the example is evidence that one of the premises is true, so it's directly supporting a premise, but not the main conclusion as (D) suggests.

I think that relates to your second:

I'm just trying to understand if in the future I can eliminate answers that don't state an analogy/example as an analogy/example. Can they also be called premises in themselves?

If I understand your first question correctly, even if "premise" was changed to "example," (D) would still not be an accurate description because of the "directly" language. At the same time, to your second question, a correct answer choice could certainly refer to an analogy/example as a premise, if that's how it's functioning in the stimulus. Further, the stimulus might even label a sentence as an analogy--it might be phrased, "Analogously,...", and an answer choice might appropriately refer to that analogy as an "example," if it is indeed functioning as an example. So "analogies," "examples," and "premises" are all distinct, though a sentence could certainly be all three of those, or two of them, or just one.

Hope that helps!

[PresidentLSAT]

Hi,

I would like to know if there is something I'm missing here. The example here is clearly their inability to follow/analyze market trends. How is the consequence of the example provided an example? I initially prefaced it as a sub conclusion that follows a conclusion.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

It's not really a consequence of an example, President, but an example itself of the poor managerial skills. You could think of it as two separate examples (failing to analyze the trends AND failing to manage growth). The fact that one example causes another doesn't mean they aren't both examples of the same thing. They both are examples of poor managerial skills present in some companies.

Hope that helps!