- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8235
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
Flaw in the reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
The stimulus describes two situations and their consequences. First, when workers are not challenged, they become bored and do not live up to their potential. On the other hand, when they are challenged too much, they give up and also do not live up to their potential. As such, the stimulus concludes, workers will never reach their full potential. The flaw in this argument is that the author draws this conclusion by looking at two extremes, without considering what happens when workers find the right difficulty of work. In other words, the stimulus assumes that there are only two possibilities—too easy or too hard—when there may actually be a middle ground.
Answer choice (A) The stimulus does not do what this answer choice suggests. Yes, the conclusion is about what is possible, and this is projected from what actually happens when workers are challenged too much or too little. However, the stimulus does not mistakenly equate the two, so this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This is close to our pre-phrase—that the argument ignores, without good reason, the prospect of a middle ground.
Answer choice (C) The evidence may be subjective rather than hard, concrete numbers, but this is not what is wrong with the stimulus. Subjective evidence may be perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances, such as this one, when we are not dealing with precision measurements and the like.
Answer choice (D) The stimulus does not make a causal argument. There is a semblance of causation in the stimulus' premises, when the author discusses what happens when workers find work too easy or difficult. However, the premises are generally not attacked in these flaw in the reasoning questions; as the namesake suggests, we are to attack the reasoning process to get from premise to conclusion, not the premises themselves. There is a much bigger flaw with the argument that does not have to do with its premises.
Answer choice (E) This answer suggests that the argument uses a term with multiple meanings in one way in one part of the argument, and another in another context. There is no term that is used equivocally in the stimulus.