Traditionally, decision-making by managers that is reasoned step-by-st

­Careful--you're following a path that doesn't have much to do with the question. Our job is not to be "okay with" the conclusion. We are simply looking for an assumption the argument relies on. This in no way means that there are not other assumptions the argument relies on, or that if we fill in the correct answer, the argument is now a good one. A useful distinction we might make here is between "Sufficient" and "Necessary." We are looking for something necessary--the argument can't do without it. We are NOT looking for something sufficient--something that, when added, makes the argument 100% correct. 
For instance, consider this argument:
Dmitry has met Dr. Cornel West.
Dr. West is running for president of the United States.
So soon, Dmitry's access to the president of the United States will provide him with inside information about the workings of the US government. 
I'm sure you can find more than a few flaws in this argument. In fact, it's quite terrible! Surely, just because West is running for president doesn't mean he will be president. (I might go so far as to say that he hasn't a prayer!) But even if he wins, why would I have direct access to him? And who says that he'd give me the juicy info if I did? 
So . . . if we're asked for an assumption, what are we looking for? Something that fixes all of these problems? Something that fixes one of them? No--we're looking for something the argument can't do without! Here are a few examples, any ONE of which could be the correct answer to an assumption question for this argument:
*Dr. West won't drop out of the race.
*Meeting someone makes it likely that one will have access to that person in the future. 
*Dmitry won't die tomorrow. 
*Government officials sometimes share inside information with others. 
Notice that none of those does much toward fixing the argument overall, but they each address one small hole in the reasoning. If we took any of them out, the argument would fall apart. For me to get the inside dirt, he has to actually run, win, talk to me (while I'm alive), and share the info. 
So in short, never worry about whether the argument is logically sound. It won't be! Worry about whether the conclusion clearly CAN'T be right without the answer in question. Hope that helps! 

(B) Top managers have the ability to use either intuitive reasoning or methodical, step-by-step reasoning in making decisions.

  (F) In the relevant study in question, Top managers had the ability to use use either intuitive reasoning or methodical, step-by-step reasoning in making decisions.

 DmitryFarberSnorLax_7Hi KarishmaB MartyMurray DmitryFarber GMATNinjaThis confirms the alternative view that intuition is actually more effective than careful, methodical reasoning.Are you guys ok with the wording of the conclusion that nowhere mentions X is more effective in decision making than Y and makes a generic statement that Intution IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN careful reasoning ?­Careful--you're following a path that doesn't have much to do with the question. Our job is not to be "okay with" the conclusion. We are simply looking for an assumption the argument relies on. This in no way means that there are not other assumptions the argument relies on, or that if we fill in the correct answer, the argument is now a good one. A useful distinction we might make here is between "Sufficient" and "Necessary." We are looking for something necessary--the argument can't do without it. We are NOT looking for something sufficient--something that, when added, makes the argument 100% correct. 
For instance, consider this argument:
Dmitry has met Dr. Cornel West.
Dr. West is running for president of the United States.
So soon, Dmitry's access to the president of the United States will provide him with inside information about the workings of the US government. 
I'm sure you can find more than a few flaws in this argument. In fact, it's quite terrible! Surely, just because West is running for president doesn't mean he will be president. (I might go so far as to say that he hasn't a prayer!) But even if he wins, why would I have direct access to him? And who says that he'd give me the juicy info if I did? 
So . . . if we're asked for an assumption, what are we looking for? Something that fixes all of these problems? Something that fixes one of them? No--we're looking for something the argument can't do without! Here are a few examples, any ONE of which could be the correct answer to an assumption question for this argument:
*Dr. West won't drop out of the race.
*Meeting someone makes it likely that one will have access to that person in the future. 
*Dmitry won't die tomorrow. 
*Government officials sometimes share inside information with others. 
Notice that none of those does much toward fixing the argument overall, but they each address one small hole in the reasoning. If we took any of them out, the argument would fall apart. For me to get the inside dirt, he has to actually run, win, talk to me (while I'm alive), and share the info. 
So in short, never worry about whether the argument is logically sound. It won't be! Worry about whether the conclusion clearly CAN'T be right without the answer in question. Hope that helps! ­
DmitryFarber KarishmaB
Premise: Recent study found that top managers used intuition significantly more than did most middle- or lower-level managers 
Conclusion: intuition is actually more effective than careful, methodical reasoning.(B) Top managers have the ability to use either intuitive reasoning or methodical, step-by-step reasoning in making decisions.I understad that (B) is incorrect, because conclusion is based on the ''Recent study''.
It doesn't matter, whether in the real world, Top managers have the ability to use both intuitive reasoning OR methodical, step-by-step.
But if there had been an option (F) written as below, would it be necessary for the argument?  (F) In the relevant study in question, Top managers had the ability to use use either intuitive reasoning or methodical, step-by-step reasoning in making decisions.I understand that it is never recommended to discuss option(F), but it could help me to understand option (B) better.

 
This point has nothing to do with the assumption of the question. The argument is not about the ability of the people. It is about who uses what more and who uses what less during decision making. Top managers use intuition more than middle or lower managers do. 
Based on that we are concluding that intuition is actually more effective than careful, methodical reasoning.
For that we are assuming that top managers are more effective. ­

 (F) In the relevant study in question, Top managers had the ability to use use either intuitive reasoning or methodical, step-by-step reasoning in making decisions.