medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Manager: Our most productive software teams all hold daily stand-up meetings. The teams that recently became less productive had, in the months before, quietly stopped holding their stand-ups. To restore productivity, every team must therefore reinstate daily stand-up meetings.
The reasoning in the manager's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- presumes without warrant that a factor accompanying productivity is necessary to cause it, ignoring other traits the teams share
- draws its broad conclusion about every team from evidence that in fact concerns only one single team, taken to represent all the rest
- concludes that merely holding daily stand-ups is, by itself, fully sufficient to make a team the single most productive one
- relies chiefly on the testimony of plainly interested managers, each one having a personal stake in the meetings being continued
- fails to specify anything at all beyond how many minutes each individual team's own daily stand-up meeting ought to last
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?