Question Type:
Flaw
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Attempting to increase productivity in the economy as a whole will increase the number of unemployed workers.
Evidence: Attempting to increase productivity of a corporation typically leads to a reduction in the number of workers employed by that corporation.
Answer Anticipation:
It looks like a classic Part vs. Whole flaw. "Because increasing prod leads to fewer workers for a given corporation, increasing prod leads to fewer workers for the economy as a whole." We can argue that what is true of an individual corporation need not be true of the economy as a whole. For example, if the people laid off by the corporation that just reduced its workers are able to find other jobs, then the corporation has a decrease in employed workers but the economy as a whole did not.
Correct Answer:
B
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Did the author really make this harsh assumption? No, he's only saying that increasing productivity will lead to fewer workers. He doesn't draw any conclusion that we should ABANDON it as a goal. He might just be asking politicians (in the first sentence) to better acknowledge the drawbacks of that goal.
(B) YES! This is giving us the Whole vs. Part language we were anticipating. The author tells us in the premise what the results of increased productivity can be for a single corporation and then assumes in the conclusion that the same result would hold for the economy as a whole.
(C) The first sentence is our only mention of politicians, and the author is criticizing something politicians often do. There's no argument move from "because some politicians ignore the drawbacks, ALL politicians deserve our criticism."
(D) Did the author really make this extreme assumption? Increasing productivity is ALWAYS more important than the interests of workers/business owners? Definitely not. There's no language at all in terms of ranking the importance of advantages vs. drawbacks. And if anything, it feels like the author is sticking up for workers.
(E) It's true. The author did fail to mention ALL potential drawbacks, but is that really a logical criticism of his argument? We're supposed to be criticizing the move from the premise to the conclusion, both of which are just about the potential drawback of having fewer employed workers. So the logical flaw has to relate to what the author was saying about that specific drawback.
Takeaway/Pattern: Part vs. Whole is one of the ten Famous Flaws we encourage you to know, and it would actually be Top 5 if we had to prioritize. Look for the recyclying of an adjective/trait that gets used in the premise and the conclusion. "Because the bed is sturdy, the bedpost must be sturdy."
#officialexplanation