Q8 - The university's purchasing department

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

In this Match the Flaw question, we want to make sure we know up front which flaw to look for in the answers. Note that the conclusion is about each individual staff member, while the evidence is about the department as a unit. We often refer to this flaw as Parts to Whole, since the argument switches from the department (whole) to the staff members (parts).

Answer choice (C) provides another argument with the same flawed method of reasoning. It switches from discussing the computer (whole) to discussing the components of the computer (parts).

Incorrect Answers
(A) employs a different flawed method of reasoning. One that fails to consider that the time one waits for fast food may depend on factors other than the age and experience of the staff.
(B) has two issues. First, the direction of the parts to whole relationship is reversed in this answer compared with the stimulus. Second, having "serious deficiencies" may be different than "inadequate for our needs."
(D) has two issues. First the direction of the parts to whole issue moves in the wrong direction compared with the stimulus. Second, this argument rests on an appeal to an authority, which could end up being appropriate or inappropriate (depending on the level of their expertise).
(E) may sound similar but this argument fails the test of validity. This argument does not contain flawed reasoning!


#officialexplanation

[YZ78]

Hi all, Could any one help me to explain in more detail that why E cannot be the right answer?
thanks.