Quote:
After the Springfield Sluggers posted three losing seasons in a row over the past three seasons, the team's owners re-signed the team's manager, Hal Higgins, to a new five-year contract. This decision surprised many baseball fans because, ordinarily, when a team fails repeatedly to post a winning record, the team's manager is fired.
Which of the following, if true, provides the best indication that the Springfield Sluggers' owners' decision was logically well supported?
(A) During his last stint as a manager for another team Higgins had a winning record, although another manager rumored to be interested in the position has won pennant titles.
(B) The Baseball Owners' Association is considering a new profit-sharing plan that will allow teams with smaller television audiences, such as the Springfield Sluggers, a greater share of television revenues.
(C) The Springfield Sluggers, an expansion team with no star players and a small team payroll, has shown consistently improved performance over the past three years, and finally posted a winning record in the second half of last season.
(D) Sports journalists and irate fans in Capitol City, home of the Capitol City Cougars, a rival team to the Springfield Sluggers, recently succeeded in their campaign to have the team's manager fired because of the team's lackluster record.
(E) Many players on the Springfield Sluggers have had to be replaced after they declared free agency and signed with other teams.
The correct answer here is
C. This question is asking us to "
strengthen the argument", but with a catch. The conclusion we're looking to strengthen is that
"it was a good decision to extend the manager's contract". The catch is that the premises given to us so far actually DON'T go in favour of extension. Hence, we're looking for external information that tells us the team, or the manager is doing something right.
A - It does not matter that Higgins had a winning record with another team. We need info that says he's doing well with
this team.
OUTB - If this is true, it means that the fortunes of Springfield will improve. However, this
doesn't validate the decision to keep the manager in any way. This is a totally external factor which in no way indicates that the manager did anything worth keeping him for.
OUTC - Springfield may have an absolute losing record, but this info shows that they have a)improved consistently and b)over-performed for their payroll. This
actually DOES indicate that the manager did something right. Hence, it strengthens the argument and is
CORRECT.
D - Whether other teams have lobbied for their manager to be removed or not, and the success of that endeavour are both totally irrelevant. Like we saw in A, we only need to watch for what this manager has done with this team.
OUTE - This doesn't give us much info about whether the team has been doing okay or not. If anything, it mildly suggests that things are unstable, and that the manager has therefore done a
bad job.
OUTAs with all Assumption based CR questions, it is essential to correctly identify the conclusion. One added challenge to this otherwise simple question is that the premises don't really support the given conclusion, and this is rather uncommon. However, so long as you stick to IDing the conclusion, and parsing through the options to eliminate 4 of them, you should be fine!
- Matoo
_________________
Crackverbal Prep Team
www.crackverbal.com