Q3 - Sales manager: Having spent my entire

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Inference/Most Strongly Supported

Stimulus Breakdown:
After establishing her credentials, this sales manager establishes two pieces of information:
1) Superstar salespeople are rare
2) Good managers can make regular salespeople perform like superstars.

Answer Anticipation:
These "fill in the blank"-style questions are a bit different than normal inference questions. We still want an answer that is nearly certain based on the premises. However, these arguments usually bring all the information together (instead of only relying on some of the statements). They also usually rely on comparisons.

In this case, the manager talks about the rarity of superstar salespeople, but the ability to create them with good managers (shocker, right?). We should expect the answer to bring these two together, stating that we should focus on getting good managers that these rare superstar salespeople.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The argument is about managing some and inherent talent in others. Training vs. evaluating both falls in the managing category, and the argument doesn't really distinguish between those roles. You could argue that noting whether someone is a superstar could fall under evaluating, but the argument only talks about managing, not training (maybe it's just keeping a tight leash).

(B) Correct. Answers to this style of question usually compare the things brought up in the individual statements. Here, we know superstars are rare, which implies that "good" managers are easier to come by. That makes a focus on recruiting them more likely to yield good results. Airtight? Nope, but this question type doesn't have to be.

(C) Out of scope. The argument talks about good management, which may or may not be a factor of how many people that person is managing.

(D) Out of scope/bad comparison. There's no reason to believe that the skills making someone a superstar salesperson will translate to even being a "good" manager.

(E) Out of scope. The argument doesn't care too much about rewards. Additionally, this answer draws a distinction between superstar performance and talent, while the argument itself seems to say that the two should be viewed equally.

Takeaway/Pattern: For the fill-in-the-blank Inference questions, focus on Iding the information brought up (usually 2 pieces of info) and how they could be combined through comparing the content of the statements.

#officialexplanation