Decentralization enables divisions of a large institution to function autonomously. This always permits more realisti...

Mehran on November 20, 2015

Thanks for your question, @Batman.

As you correctly note, this is a Must Be True question type. Notice that we are told that decentralization enables divisions of large institutions to function autonomously (sentence #1), and that this, in turn, ALWAYS permits MORE REALISTIC planning (part of sentence #2). This is a relative statement--what it means is that planning in large institutions whose divisions function autonomously is MORE REALISTIC (always) than is planning in large institutions whose divisions do NOT function autonomously. That must be true, by the plain terms of the stimulus. It's not an erroneous negation, and it's not the contrapositive. Rather, answer choice (A) must be true because the terms of the stimulus clearly state that decentralization and autonomous divisions always (without exception) allow more realistic planning. Not "as realistic" planning (i.e., not "equal" to non-decentralized, non-autonomous divisions). MORE realistic planning.

Review concepts related to quantifiers and relative statements (more than, less than, equal to, greater than, faster than, at least as fast as, etc.).

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

JoshG on May 11, 2020

@Mehran, I still don't understand from your explanation herein how (A) isn't a only a negation. Thanks.

Ross-Rinehart on September 6 at 05:44PM

@JoshG It certainly looks like an illegal negation if we think of "Decentralization ... always permits more realistic planning and strongly encourages innovation" as *just* an "if-then" statement. We'd diagram it as "Decentralize --> More Realistic Planning," which would make (A) look like "NOT Decentralize --> NOT More Realistic Planning."

However, let's look at the full statement: "Decentralization enables divisions of a large institution to function autonomously. This always permits more realistic planning and strongly encourages innovation." When we read the entire thing, there are a few things that show us that this is more than an "if-then" statement.

First, there's some cause and effect going on. Decentralization *enables* autonomy, more realistic planning, and innovation. In other words, decentralization causes planning to be more realistic. If we were to take away the cause, we'd expect the effect to go away too. (Review cause-and-effect relationships in the Strengthen and Weaken lessons if you need to brush up on this idea.) So, if we were to take away decentralization, we'd expect planning to be *less* realistic than it could be.

Second (and as Mehran mentioned), the first two sentences put things on a sliding scale. More decentralization is associated with more realistic planning. Imagine a line chart with "decentralization" as the X-axis and "realistic planning" on the Y-axis. The line on that chart would go up along the X and Y axis. As we go up the X (increase decentralization), we go up the Y (increase realistic planning). As we go down the X (decrease decentralization), we go down the Y (decrease realistic planning).

So, while it's true we can't negate both sides of an "if-then" statement, the first two statements aren't just an "if-then" statement. They're causal and relative, and these statements work a bit differently.