Q26 - Suggestions for improved efficiency

[frankdio]

I am looking at answer choices b and c. Can someone help me figure out why c is wrong and b is right?

They seem confusingly similar...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question!

Notice that the conclusion is about the ideas employers want to try. The argument is about how to get the employees to do the work the employer wants them to.

Answer choice (B) slides in the word "believe" which is really important. Now the employers can implement their own ideas and the employees will believe that they had some role in helping come up with the idea.

Answer choice (C) discusses an idea that was generated by a discussion between the employer and the employee. That's not quite the same as implementing the ideas the employer would like.

In short, answer choice (B) helps justify the reasoning between the evidence and the conclusion, whereas answer choice (C) could be used to justify the reasoning between the evidence and a slightly different conclusion.

Does that answer your question here?

[joseph.m.kirby]

(B) mentions that employees believe that they "participated in generating" the ideas for improved efficiency, while (C) notes that employees participated in a dialogue related to improved efficiency.

The problem with (C) is that employees generally resent suggestions (ideas) that they did not generate. (C) as a principle doesn't capture this aspect of the information of the stimulus. It's possible for employees to participate in a dialogue and not participate in generating ideas (they could be yes-men).

[deedubbew]

I'll have to disagree with matt sherman on this one. The reason why C is wrong is because the last part of the answer choice refers to a situation in which employees do not participate. We don't know anything about this situation; what if they contributed to the generation of ideas without participating in the dialogue? We know nothing about dialogue of employers that does not include employees. Let me know if you disagree or if I'm missing something matt.

[WaltGrace1983]

I'll have to disagree with matt sherman on this one. The reason why C is wrong is because the last part of the answer choice refers to a situation in which employees do not participate. We don't know anything about this situation; what if they contributed to the generation of ideas without participating in the dialogue? We know nothing about dialogue of employers that does not include employees. Let me know if you disagree or if I'm missing something matt.

I tend to agree with this reasoning as well. However, (B) and (C) were both REALLY tricky.

Is there anything wrong with the reasoning above? I feel like the "more likely" in (B) is justified because the conclusion is that they will be implemented "more effectively" whereas (C) goes a bit far because it directly compares one dialogue to another dialogue not mentioned. However, maybe both (B) and (C) are comparative in nature (?).

I think you could also use Matt's logic to see that the intermediate conclusion is emphasizing "dialogue that emphasizes the employee's positive contributions to the development of such ideas" whereas (C) is talking about a more generalized dialogue.

[rinagoldfield]

Is there anything wrong with the reasoning above? I feel like the "more likely" in (B) is justified because the conclusion is that they will be implemented "more effectively" whereas (C) goes a bit far because it directly compares one dialogue to another dialogue not mentioned. However, maybe both (B) and (C) are comparative in nature (?).

I think you could also use Matt's logic to see that the intermediate conclusion is emphasizing "dialogue that emphasizes the employee's positive contributions to the development of such ideas" whereas (C) is talking about a more generalized dialogue.

Great points, Walt.

[mkd000]

this is the core I came up with:

employer suggestions unlikely to get positive responses from employees (resent ideas not participate in gen)
+
if employers engage employee in nonthreatening dialogue that emph contrib then ideas implements more quickly/effectively
--------------------------
employer should engage employee in non threat dialogue etc.

Is this correct? I initially was pretty confident about this but am confused after reading Walt's post. It looks like Walt sees the second sentence as the intermediate conclusion. I don't see it that way. one reason is that "should" in the second sentence is pretty characteristic of being in the conclusion for questions of this type

please help!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think I agree with your Argument Core. Let me put up a complete explanation for posterity.

Question Type: Principle-Support

Argument Core ---------

CONCLUSION
Employers should engage employees in a dialogue that emphasizes the employee's contributions to developing suggestions for improved efficiency

(why?)

EVIDENCE
Suggestions that come from the employer probably won't be received positively. Employees tend to resent suggestions that they didn't come up with.
+
Suggestions that come from dialogue with the employees will allow the employers' ideas to be implemented more quickly / effectively

ANALYSIS OF THE CORE

I picked the middle sentence as the conclusion, because I feel like the other two claims are under the umbrella of the suggestion in the middle sentence. The 1st sentence says why a different method is bad. The 3rd sentence says why the suggested method is good.

Nevertheless, as I read the paragraph, I felt like we had reason to be dubious about the 3rd sentence. How do I know this nonthreatening dialogue plan will work? Is the last sentence really supported or just believed by the author?

My immediate reaction was to think of ways to say "the solution won't work" ... such as, you won't be able to get the employees to generate (seemingly on their own) the same ideas that the employers crave.

It seems like the correct answer is concerned with convincing us that the 3rd sentence would be true on the basis of the 2nd sentence.

This is one of those messy Principle questions that doesn't necessarily lend itself to an easy "If PREM, then CONC" pre-phrase.

The hallmark of ANY correct Principle answer, though, is that each part of it matches something we talked about.

=== answer choices ===

(A) This is a poor match for the plan we're suggesting. The nonthreatening dialogue isn't described as, "Hey, the employer will still suggest behavior, but the employer won't make it seem like the suggestion is obviously directed at the employee."

(B) This is a pretty good match. The nonthreatening dialogue, with its emphasis on the positive contributions of the employee to developing efficiency ideas, IS going to make employees believe they helped generate the ideas. And the result of "more likely to carry out these ideas" is exactly what we're hoping for, as employers, and saying in the final sentence.

(C) This is a fairly good match, but not as good as (B). The nonthreatening dialogue IS a dialogue in which the employees are participating. But the contrast in (B) is a tighter fit than that in (C). More on this at the end. Keep it for now.

(D) Not a great match. First of all, it's focused on whether the employee will / won't generate good ideas. (B) and (C) had a better match for what really matters -- whether the employee will / won't implement the ideas. It's pretty safe to assume that employees will NOT feel resentment for the nonthreatening dialogue idea, but that's not a great explicit match.

(E) Bad match. This rule helps you judge whether someone will / won't resent an employer. The big outcome we care about in this conversation is, "Can we / can't we get our employees to take suggestions for improved efficiency."

Back to the down to 2 between (B) and (C)

(B) which is more likely to be implemented: ideas employees believe they helped generate (2nd sentence) or ideas they don't believe they helped generate (1st sentence). Each half of that has keyword matches.

(C) which is more likely to be implemented: ideas derived from a dialogue the employees took part in (2nd sentence) or ideas derived from a dialogue the employees did not take part in (????).

The discussed distinction is:
employer gives employee suggestions
vs.
employer has talk with employee and they try to collectively generate suggestions

The former option is not a 'dialogue'. It's just your boss telling you what to do. So the contrast (C) describes is less relevant to our two options than the contrast that (B) describes.

(B) is the correct answer.

[Jahma002]

Take it in simple terms. They want you to choose a "Principle". Principle is a fact.
C: The fact that employees follow something that originated from a conversation.

Conclusion: Talk to your employee and emphasize their contribution. (Note: nothing about choice C)
Treat C is a solid fact, as it is a principle. If the Conclusion stated "talk to your employees and make them feel as if the idea arouse from the conversation" then choice C would be perfect.
B in this case represent what the stimulus provides. "Believe they have participated in generating". Participation in form of their "contributions...to the development". Believe-Because the idea actually generated from the employers.

Best of luck,
Ahmad