Company president: Our consultants report that, in general, the most e

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

The company president doesn’t say so explicitly, but he is using a correlation-equals-causation argument. In the first sentence, he notes a correlation between efficient management and excellent time management skills. He then apparently assumes a causal relationship between these two variables—he seems to think excellent time management causes efficient management—because he suggests that a seminar on time management techniques be offered to his mid-level managers. This is not a strong argument, because he is assuming that A causes B, when it could be that B causes A or that both A and B are caused by something else entirely. It will be easy to weaken this argument. It’s a “weaken… EXCEPT” question, so there will be four weakeners and one non-weakener (the correct answer). The non-weakener can be either a strengthener or can be something totally irrelevant. It might be easiest here to eliminate the four weakeners and leave the correct answer standing.

A) If the consultant uses the same criteria to evaluate efficiency and time management, then there isn’t even a correlation at all, which makes the entire argument irrelevant. This is a little bit like saying, “The MVP of the league is usually the league’s best player, and I know because the league’s best player is determined by who gets the most MVP votes.” This is circular reasoning, and therefore a horrible argument. This is a weakener.

B) If successful time management is more dependent on motivation than good technique, then what good is a seminar on time management technique? If the company’s middle management is a bunch of lazy bums, then no amount of training is going to do any good. This would destroy the argument, if true.

C) If this is true, then it weakens by example. Look what happened in company Z! In company Z, a time management seminar was given and the managers are still unproductive. In other words, there is no causal relationship between the two variables. This is another good weakener.

D) This is irrelevant to the argument because it is about managers who are already efficient. If we said this to the company president, he would probably say, “So what? The seminar isn’t for the managers who are already efficient.

We’re making it available so that those who aren’t efficient can take advantage of it. Now go wax my car.” Because this isn’t an effective argument against the president’s plan, and because we are now going to have to go wax the president’s car, this is probably the correct answer to this “EXCEPT” question.

E) If this is true, then it weakens the idea that a time management seminar can have any effect on efficiency. This is another good weakener.

Our answer is D, because A, B, C, and E all weaken the argument, while D is irrelevant.­