A researcher studying corporate executives found that they tend to have “take charge” personalities, with the predominant traits of assertiveness, decisiveness, and self-confidence. The researcher concluded that people who are more “take charge” than the average person are more likely to become corporate executives.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcher’s conclusion?


(A) Holding the job of a corporate executive causes people to develop “take charge” personality traits.

(B) When working on charitable or community projects, corporate executives often use their ability to make decisions and lead people to make those projects successful.

(C) Some people who are not executives have stronger “take charge” personalities than some people who currently serve as corporate executives.

(D) Many people who aspire to become executives exhibit different management styles in their current jobs.

(E) The executives that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful when they tried to manage their family activities as they do their business activities.

This is another causal reasoning question.

People who have "take charge" (CAUSE) ----> (EFFECT) Become executives.
One of the way to weaken this causal relationship is to show that the REVERSE RELATIONSHIP holds true. Becoming executive lead them to develop "take charge" personality.

Option A is correct.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Consider how the researcher reached the conclusion that having a more “take charge” personality makes a person more likely to become a corporate executive. Only one justification is given for this proposed cause and effect: the observation that a “take charge” personality tends to be observed in people who are corporate executives. However, it could be the case that the cause and effect relationship flows in the opposite direction than that proposed in the argument, as it is possible that a person first becomes a corporate executive and then develops a more “take charge” personality as a result.

(A) CORRECT. If a “take charge” personality is observed in people who are corporate executives because the job itself causes those traits to emerge, then the researcher’s conclusion that the personality traits lead to the job would be weakened.

(B) The behavior of corporate executives outside of the corporate world is not relevant to the argument.

(C) The fact that some non-executives have stronger "take charge" personalities than some people who are corporate executives does not substantially weaken the argument, as the existence of people who embody the extremes of a "take charge" personality does not disprove that those with a "take charge" personality are more likely to move into the role of corporate executive. Moreover, the personalities of non-executives are not relevant as counterexamples to the researcher’s argument about executives.

(D) The argument concerns “take charge” personality traits, not other management styles. It is possible that the people who aspire to become executives have “take charge” personalities, but have to adjust their management style according to the demands of their current jobs. Thus, this statement does not weaken the researcher’s conclusion.

(E) The success or failure of the executive’s management style, particularly outside of the corporate world, is not relevant to the conclusion.

A is the answer, people who are more “take charge” than the average person
are more likely to become corporate executives (A--> B), to weaken that we can say if B causes A, then A may not cause B

Here we go:


Premise: corporate executives tend to have “take charge” personalities.
Conclusion: people who are more “take charge” than the average person are more likely to become corporate executives


A. Holding the job of a corporate executive causes people to develop “take charge” personality traits.
--- This option states thet it's the job that develops the personality traits not the other way round---


B. When working on charitable or community projects, corporate executives often use their ability to make decisions and lead people to make those projects successful.
---- Irrelevant-----


C. Some people who are not executives have stronger “take charge” personalities than some people who currently serve as corporate executives.
--- Irrelevant----


D. Many people who aspire to become executives exhibit different management styles in their current jobs.
---- out of scope -----

E. The executives that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful when they tried to manage their family activities as they do their business activities.
---- out of scope----


Option A is correct

Dear All,
need great help. Appreciate your comments.
I got confused between A and C.

Conclusion: people who are more “take charge” than the average person are more likely to become corporate executives.

Possible weaken: 1. not all people with more take charge will become corporate executive
2. Executive jobs requires that

I got confused between A and C and ended up with C.
how to avoid this confusion.
Hope to hear from you. Many thanks
Many thanks.

Conclusion :- having a more “take charge” personality makes a person more likely to become a corporate executive.

research study: corporate executives have 'take charge' personalities.
Conclusion: people who have take charge personalities -> likely to become corporate executive.

Now this is similiar to cause -> effect reasoning. what if effect-> cause? This is a definite weakener.

1)Holding the job of a corporate executive causes people to develop "take charge" personality traits. [addresses Effect -> Cause. Correct.]
If a “take charge” personality is observed in people who are
corporate executives because the job itself causes those traits to emerge, then
the researcher’s conclusion that the personality traits lead to the job would be
weakened.
_________________