Q16 - When a group of people starts

[redcobra21]

Just wondering what the problem is with (B)? Is it incorrect because it is a premise booster?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, you could call (B) a premise booster, since it only addresses the line "it is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled".

Based on saying that, the author does NOT have to assume that some individuals CAN provide both.

Since this is the first post on this question, I'll do the typical complete explanation.

Necessary Assumption

Prem:
Founders are usually the source of funding and skills
+
A single individual is unlikely to be a sufficient source of both

Conc:
Founding groups are more likely to succeed than founding individuals

Any time there's a new term/idea in the conclusion, we can name an assumption based on that. This conclusion talks about "likelihood of success", but nothing in the premises ever mentioned that.

So what is the author assuming makes a company more/less likely to succeed?

Well, since the author is saying founding GROUPS are more likely to succeed than founding individuals, let's just ask ourselves, "What did the author say was the distinguishing quality of groups vs. individuals?"

The author essentially said that groups are more likely to collectively have the adequate funding/skills.

So the assumption we could predict is:
A company that is more likely to start with adequate funding/skills is more likely to succeed.

Note, though, that the author never actually said that groups are more likely than individuals to collectively have the adequate funding/skills, so that idea could also be a correct answer.

(A) Way too extreme. EVERY member contributes EQUALLY? Not discussed.

(B) While the author allows for this to be true (he says it's unlikely, not impossible), the author doesn't have to assume it IS true (and negating this would only help the author's argument).

(C) Founders vs. nonfounders seems out of scope. The conclusion is about group founders vs. individual founders. But wait -- if you were an individual starting a company and didn't possess the needed funding/skills, wouldn't you seek it from somewhere else? So "acquiring funding/skills from nonfounders" is just code for "an individual founder who doesn't possess the needed funding/skills himself". We actually DO need this assumption. If getting funding/skills from people other than founders were just as successful a strategy as getting it from the founder(s), then companies founded by groups would have no advantage (that we know of) over companies founded by individuals.

(D) This is a pointless comparison ... marketing/mgmt/technical are all lumped together. The author doesn't have to assume any comparisons within them.

(E) This is similar to (D), in that it's bringing up a pointless nuance within the marketing/mgmt/technical threesome.

To be honest, on a first pass I eliminated everything. This is a great example of a hard question in the "Danger Zone" of an LR section. Reading the stimulus elicits a fairly predictable response from readers, but LSAT is not rewarding that idea (at least not in its simplest form). We need to be very flexible with our thinking (and decisive with answer choice deal-breakers) to actually steal this one.

Hope this helps.