Economist:  Every business strives to increase its productivity, for this increases profits for the owners and the li...

Lalit on March 18 at 04:27PM

Extra assumption

I feel like there is a missing link in this argument like in a required assumption question. It says that some practices can harm the business, but then only talks about how those practices harm employees. There is no extra statement that says, things that harm employees also harm the business.

2 Replies

Ben on March 18 at 05:50PM

Hi Recklesss343, thanks for bringing this up.

I would say you are spot on in that assessment. It is actually interesting that the vast majority of flawed arguments on the LSAT can be viewed through the lens of many different question types.

Take this argument for example:

Main Point: But not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole.

Necessary Premise: Something that harms employees can be harmful to the business as a whole.

Sufficient Premise: If it harms employees, then it harms the business as a whole.

Weaken: There is no correlation between harm to employees and harm to business.

Strengthen: There is a strong positive correlation between harm to employees and harm to business.

Flaw: Assumes, without proper justification, that what harms employees is also harmful to the business.

This goes on and on. So good for you for catching that an argument has missing premises. You can play this "game" with a bunch of different passages. This will really boost your ability anticipate correct answer choices and spot holes in an argument.

As far as this specific question goes though, it is enough to just find the main conclusion and move on. But good practice for your own study.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

on June 29 at 06:28AM

Isn't the answer C