Question Type:
Flaw (since it's the 2nd person, we should look out for some form of Bad Listening)
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: I reject your argument that "S's lack of background in the oil industry disqualifies him for CEO of Pod Oil".
Evidence: An oil background doesn't guarantee success, as you can see from the last CEO, who had such a background and was terrible.
Answer Anticipation:
My first objection came when I heard Galindo say "an oil industry background is no guarantee of success" …. Okay … who said it was? Fremont didn't say "Because Simpson has an oil background, he's a great CEO candidate". Fremont said, "Because S doesn't have an oil background, he's a terrible CEO candidate".
Fremont seems to feel that [an oil backround] is necessary for the CEO job. Galindo is discussing whether [an oil background] is sufficient for the CEO job. The correct answer will likely hit on that bad listening / shift of discussion.
Correct Answer:
C
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) G doesn't seem to be accusing F of any personal bias.
(B) The conversation only touches on oil background, which is clearly relevant experience for being CEO of Pod Oil. There's no distinction needed.
(C) YES! F is arguing that an oil background is necessary to be CEO, and G is disagreeing by arguing that an oil background is not a sufficient guarantee that you'll be a good CEO.
(D) Does the author conclude that an attribute is always irrelevant to success? Not at all.
(E) Does the author present only one example? Yes. Does the author make a broad generalization on that basis? No. The author is only saying "oil background doesn't guarantee success". Since you only need one true example to prove that claim, we probably wouldn't call it a generalization. If we DID call it a generalization, fine. The author's example FULLY proves her generalization (if one experienced CEO did not succeed, then you have proven that experience doesn't guarantee success), so this is not the source of a flaw.
Takeaway/Pattern: Earlier in this section was a "How did the 2nd person misinterpret the 1st" question. This is very similar. We wouldn't be able to just read G's argument and find the flaw, because the real logical error was when G shifted the topic of debate from what F was talking about to what G felt like talking about.
#officialexplanation