Q1 - Executive: Our company is proud

[noah]

The conclusion of this argument is that the company treats its employees fairly. Why? Because those retirees who responded to a survey said they had been treated fairly.

The issue I see, and that (D) hinges upon, is that we don't know about the folks that didn't respond. What if triple the number of people didn't respond? And, it's possible that people who responded tended to be happier with the company.

(A) is referring to circular reasoning, but this argument uses a survey to draw a conclusion. Not circular!

(B) is silly - why can't the survey be verified?

(C) makes me say "hunh?" Fairly means fairly in this argument.

(E) is perhaps tempting if you thought the issue was that the survey was of retirees, and maybe now the company treats employees differently, however, there's no assumption that the old ways are better than the new - the assumption is basically the opposite - that the old ways can tell us about what's going on now.

There are some other gaps in this argument - specifically, does a survey of retirees speak to current conditions? - however you pointed out some issues that are not germane to the argument:

The fact that the survey is recent is irrelevant. The conclusion is about current conditions.

Also, "good relations" is part of the background of the argument, not the core. The argument isn't trying to prove that the company is proud of its long history of good relations with its employees. The argument is about what can be concluded based on the survey.


#officialexplanation

[LSAT-Chang]

Just to make sure that I really understand the "flaw" being committed here, is (D) correct because the argument is concluding a generalization (i.e. "long history of good relations with its employees) by using an unrepresentative sample of "recent survey" that was completed by "retirees"?

So, first, this is a flaw because it is only based on "recent survey" there could have been 1000 more surveys in the past where all 95% or even 100% replied that they were not treated fairly. Is this correct?

Second, I spotted another possible flaw before moving on to the answer choices (would like to get some feedback if this is another flaw being committed): the argument assumes that treating employees fairly is enough to prove that the company has good relations with its employees. I was thinking of a case where the company could treat the employees fairly but the employees would want more than just being treated fairly, and so they may not necessarily have a good relationship since employees are asking for more than just fairness whereas the company just treats them fairly and that's it. Does this make sense?

Though this question is not a "hard" one - I am just doing this for all flaw questions because I am trying to really nail these question types since I've noticed myself circling the flaw without really seeing and understanding that it is committed in the argument. Hope someone can help me!

[xjiang.xj]

I can see why D is correct, but I still can't convince myself that C is wrong. When I wrote this test, I thought (and I still think) that it is using the evidence of employees being treated fairly to approve that the company has a good relations with its employees. So I prephrased the answer to be a mismatch between good relations and fair treatment. What approach should I use to correct the gap in my way of thinking?

[ohthatpatrick]

1. Use key words more to identify the Conclusion and Premise


The conclusion is "We treat our employees fairly". How do I know?

The author says "a recent survey proves that ________ , since _______"

Since/because are premise indicators, and they almost always share the sentence with another claim. The claim the since/because is attached to is a premise. The other claim is a conclusion.


2. Make sure you understand the difference between equivocation and language shift

Language shift:
Holly loves to dance, and anyone who is graceful enjoys music. So Holly must enjoy music.
(language shift from 'loves to dance' to 'is graceful' .... those MIGHT go hand-in-hand in many cases, but we can't equate them)

Equivocation:
Holly must be responsible for the crime. After all, her parents let her drive the family car by herself, so they clearly think that she is responsible.

(equivocating 1st use of 'responsible' meaning 'culpable, guilty, blameworthy' with the 2nd use of 'responsible' meaning 'mature, prudent, makes good decisions')


Choice (C) isn't discussing a shift from good relations to treated fairly.

It's saying that the 1st use of the word 'fairly' in line 4 has a different meaning from the 2nd use of the word 'fairly' in line 6.

[xjiang.xj]

Thanks! Now I understand it better!

1. Use key words more to identify the Conclusion and Premise


The conclusion is "We treat our employees fairly". How do I know?

The author says "a recent survey proves that ________ , since _______"

Since/because are premise indicators, and they almost always share the sentence with another claim. The claim the since/because is attached to is a premise. The other claim is a conclusion.


2. Make sure you understand the difference between equivocation and language shift

Language shift:
Holly loves to dance, and anyone who is graceful enjoys music. So Holly must enjoy music.
(language shift from 'loves to dance' to 'is graceful' .... those MIGHT go hand-in-hand in many cases, but we can't equate them)

Equivocation:
Holly must be responsible for the crime. After all, her parents let her drive the family car by herself, so they clearly think that she is responsible.

(equivocating 1st use of 'responsible' meaning 'culpable, guilty, blameworthy' with the 2nd use of 'responsible' meaning 'mature, prudent, makes good decisions')


Choice (C) isn't discussing a shift from good relations to treated fairly.

It's saying that the 1st use of the word 'fairly' in line 4 has a different meaning from the 2nd use of the word 'fairly' in line 6.

[LolaC289]

The conclusion of this argument is that the company treats its employees fairly. Why? Because those retirees who responded to a survey said they had been treated fairly.

The issue I see, and that (D) hinges upon, is that we don't know about the folks that didn't respond. What if triple the number of people didn't respond? And, it's possible that people who responded tended to be happier with the company.

It's funny because I chose (D) but for a different reason.

I may have a misunderstanding on the word "respondent", but in my understanding, all those surveyed are respondents, not just those who did gave out an answer, at least in this case. Maybe they surveyed 100 people and among them there are 20 people refused to answer, but those 20 people are still considered respondent, because they are counted in the total number surveyed, correct?

I actually thought the sample is not representative because they relied on retirees to conclude that they have good relations with its employees. But retirees are people who sticked with the company till they are retired, the fact that they successfully retired from the company shows that their are more likely than others to approve of the company. But maybe many ex-employees were upset about the company so they just chose to resign, then of course they will not be considered as "retirees" here, thus the survey has excluded a large source of complaint.

I think there is a different in the concept "respondent". I remember a question about a radio station handing out questionnaire on people's opinions on its new program, and 80% of those who mailed back the questionnaire said they are satisfied with it, so the radio station concluded that their program is welcomed by their audiences. But "respondents" are different in these two cases, right? In the radio station case, it's true that people who didn't like the program will not return the questionnaire, so the respondent sample the station finally collected may be unrepresentative; but in here, the survey is a on-spot one, you are either a respondent/non-respondent, even if you were asked but chose not to answer, you are still a respondent in this survey, correct?

[JinZ551]

The conclusion of this argument is that the company treats its employees fairly. Why? Because those retirees who responded to a survey said they had been treated fairly.

The issue I see, and that (D) hinges upon, is that we don't know about the folks that didn't respond. What if triple the number of people didn't respond? And, it's possible that people who responded tended to be happier with the company.

It's funny because I chose (D) but for a different reason.

I may have a misunderstanding on the word "respondent", but in my understanding, all those surveyed are respondents, not just those who did gave out an answer, at least in this case. Maybe they surveyed 100 people and among them there are 20 people refused to answer, but those 20 people are still considered respondent, because they are counted in the total number surveyed, correct?

I actually thought the sample is not representative because they relied on retirees to conclude that they have good relations with its employees. But retirees are people who sticked with the company till they are retired, the fact that they successfully retired from the company shows that their are more likely than others to approve of the company. But maybe many ex-employees were upset about the company so they just chose to resign, then of course they will not be considered as "retirees" here, thus the survey has excluded a large source of complaint.

I think there is a different in the concept "respondent". I remember a question about a radio station handing out questionnaire on people's opinions on its new program, and 80% of those who mailed back the questionnaire said they are satisfied with it, so the radio station concluded that their program is welcomed by their audiences. But "respondents" are different in these two cases, right? In the radio station case, it's true that people who didn't like the program will not return the questionnaire, so the respondent sample the station finally collected may be unrepresentative; but in here, the survey is a on-spot one, you are either a respondent/non-respondent, even if you were asked but chose not to answer, you are still a respondent in this survey, correct?

I can't agree more with you

[Laura Damone]

I agree with Noah that to be considered a "respondent" to a survey, you must have actually responded to the questions. While it is true that refusing to answer the questions is a response of sorts, one wouldn't be counted among the respondents of a survey unless they actually answered the questions

And good on you for remembering the radio station question! That's very much related to this problem. An issue in both is the representativeness of the sample.

In fact, the bigger issue for me in Q1 is not that counting the responses leaves out those who didn't respond to the survey. For me, the issue is that folks who worked at the company long enough to retire from it are not representative of all employees. Maybe only a small fraction of employees make it all the way to retirement. Might those be more likely to report fair treatment than those who had cause to leave? Absolutely.