akhil911 wrote:
Military Consultant: The chain of command in your unit is marred by a serious flaw: your soldiers are so fearful of being disciplined for security breaches within their jurisdiction that they fail to report potential problems to their superiors. And those superiors share the same fear of being seen as lacking control of their units that they fail to fully investigate potential problems and bring them up the chain to you. Consequently, General, you’re likely presiding over several security threats that you’ll never know about.
Which of the following is an assumption required by the consultant’s logic.
A. The general is responsible for the culture that exists within his chain of command.
B. All soldiers near the bottom of the chain of command are fearful of being disciplined for security breaches.
C. The general does not have sources other than the chain of command to alert him to security concerns.
D. Some soldiers do not fear authority figures more than they fear genuine security threats.
E. There is not a feasible incentive system to reward soldiers for conscientiously pointing out security concerns.
I dont quite agree with the official answer given and would like to discuss this question in detail
Kudos me if you like the post !!!
Consultant: Soldiers are afraid of being disciplined for security breaches so they don't report potential problems to their superiors.
Superiors share the same fear of being seen as lacking control of their units so they ignore potential problems and do not bring them to you, General.
Conclusion: General, you’re likely presiding over several security threats that you’ll never know about.
The consultant says that since soldiers are afraid of being disciplined when some security threat slips from their hands and the superiors also have the same fear so they don't bring it to the General, the General doesn't know about many security threats.
What is the assumption?
We are assuming that the General doesn't get to know about security threats from other sources (What if he has a secret team that taps all phones and has cameras everywhere etc? Then even if soldiers and superiors try to hide, he still may come to know)
A. The general is responsible for the culture that exists within his chain of command.
We need something necessary to say that the General doesn't know about security threats, not a blame game.
B. All soldiers near the bottom of the chain of command are fearful of being disciplined for security breaches.
The argument says, "your soldiers are so fearful of being disciplined..." which pretty much means "all soldiers ..." So it is already given in the argument and isn't an assumption.
Even if we say that there may be some soldiers who are not afraid, the conclusion can still hold. We don't need to assume that ALL soldiers are fearful. Some soldiers may not be afraid and hence may bring some security threats to his notice. But if some/many are fearful, the general could be sitting on many security threats without knowing.
So when we negate "all are fearful" to "not all are fearful", our conclusion can still hold.
ndawarC. The general does not have sources other than the chain of command to alert him to security concerns.
Correct. This is an assumption as discussed above.
D. Some soldiers do not fear authority figures more than they fear genuine security threats.
This is a generic statement about some soldiers. It may have no standing on the soldiers of the General's area. Irrelevant.
E. There is not a feasible incentive system to reward soldiers for conscientiously pointing out security concerns.
We don't need to assume that they are not encouraged to report. They may be or they may not be. The point is that inspite of everything, they are scared of being disciplined and that leads to General not knowing about security threats.
Answer (C)