zoezhuyan wrote:
Traditionally, decision-making by managers that is reasoned step-by-step has been considered preferable to intuitive decision-making. However, a recent study found that top managers used intuition significantly more than did most middle- or lower-level managers. This confirms the alternative view that intuition is actually more effective than careful, methodical reasoning.
The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Methodical, step-by-step reasoning is inappropriate for making many real-life management decisions.
(B) Top managers have the ability to use either intuitive reasoning or methodical, step-by-step reasoning in making decisions.
(C) The decisions made by middle- and lower-level managers can be made as easily by using methodical reasoning as by using intuitive reasoning.
(D) Top managers use intuitive reasoning in making the majority of their decisions.
(E) Top managers are more effective at decision-making than middle- or lower-level managers.
Hi mikemcgarry,
I swithced answer choice B from choice E.
When I read this prompt especially the sentence,
Top managers used intuition significantly more than did most middle- or lower- level managers.
Using intuition more does not necessarily indicate more effectively, except top managers compared different methods.
then
I asked myself why top managers used intuition? why they did not use other methods? if they can choose both, but they chose intuition at the end, then it can indicate "intuition" is more effective.
So I picked up B eventually.
I have no idea why B is incorrect.
Please help
Thanks in advance
Zoe
Dear
zoezhuyan,
My friend, it's good to hear from you. How have you been? I'm happy to respond.
We want an assumption of the argument.
Choice (B) is funny. It's almost undeniably true, but it's not really an assumption. You may be familiar with the
Negation Test for Assumptions.
Suppose we negate (B). Suppose, quite unrealistically, most top managers do NOT have the ability to use either intuitive reasoning or methodical, step-by-step reasoning in making decisions. Suppose, for what genetic difference, most of these people can only reason intuitively. The argument could still work under these conditions. The top managers are still using intuition most of the time, and these people would stay at the top only if their decisions were successful. Thus, regardless of whether they have any choice in it, they are still demonstrating the success of this approach.
Thus, we can negate (B) and the argument still works. This means that (B) is not an assumption.
Meanwhile, (E) definitely is an assumption. In that same linked blog, I discuss something I informally call the "bridge approach" to finding an assumption. In this argument, we get the premise: "
a recent study found that top managers used intuition significantly more than did most middle- or lower-level managers." Then there's a huge leap to the conclusion, "
This confirms the alternative view that intuition is actually more effective than careful, methodical reasoning." What bridges that gap? The only way that top managers using intuition would be seen as more effective is if the top managers are more effective. This is exactly what (E) says:
Top managers are more effective at decision-making than middle- or lower-level managers.That's the assumption.
Does all this make sense?
Mike