Question

When workers do not find their assignments challenging, they become bored and so achieve less than their abilities would allow. On the other hand, when workers find their assignments too difficult, they give up and so again achieve less than what they are capable of achieving. It is, therefore, clear that no worker's full potential will ever be realized. Which one of the following is an error of reasoning contained in the argument? (A) mistakenly equating what is actual and what is merely possible (B) assuming without warrant that a situation allows only two possibilities (C) relying on subjective rather than objective evidence (D) confusing the coincidence of two events with a causal relation between the two (E) depending on the ambiguous use of a key term

Short answer

The argument assumes without warrant that there are only two possibilities, making (B) the correct answer.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Argument's Structure

The argument claims that no worker can reach their full potential because they will either get bored with easy tasks or give up on difficult ones, thus never achieving their maximum capability. We need to identify any assumptions or logical flaws in this reasoning.

Identify Potential Logical Flaws

Analyze if the argument makes any assumptions, fails to consider other possibilities, or misuses terms. The scenario suggests a binary condition: tasks are either too easy or too hard. Consider if there are other potential scenarios not accounted for by the argument.

Examine Each Answer Choice

Evaluate each option to see which best describes the argument's flaw: - **(A)** Mistakenly equates what is real with what is possible. - **(B)** Assumes only two possibilities: easy or difficult tasks. - **(C)** Uses subjective rather than objective reasoning. - **(D)** Mistakes coincidence for causation. - **(E)** Uses a term ambiguously.

Match Flaws with Answer Choices

The argument does not address the possibility of an optimal challenge. **(B):** assumes without warrant that there are only two possibilities, overlooks the possibility of assignments that are neither too easy nor too hard.

Conclusion: Choose the Correct Answer

The flaw in the argument is that it assumes only two possible states for task difficulty without considering other scenarios. Therefore, the error of reasoning in the argument is best described by answer choice (B).

Key concepts

Argument Structure

In logical reasoning, understanding the structure of an argument is crucial to identifying its strengths and weaknesses. An argument is typically composed of premises and a conclusion.
The premises provide the foundational statements or reasons supporting the conclusion. When analyzing the provided exercise, we can break down the argument into these components:

• Premise 1: If assignments are not challenging enough, workers become bored and underperform.
• Premise 2: If assignments are too challenging, workers give up and underperform.
• Conclusion: Therefore, no worker will ever achieve their full potential due to the nature of assignments.

Recognizing these components makes it easier to see where the argument may fall short. Here, the conclusion that no worker can achieve their full potential is drawn from two extremes without considering other potential scenarios. Identifying these parts allows us to spot logical fallacies or erroneous assumptions embedded within the argument.

Assumptions in Reasoning

Assumptions play a critical role in logical reasoning. They are unstated ideas or beliefs that the argument relies on to hold true. In the given argument about workers and task difficulty, the assumptions significantly impact the validity of the conclusion. One key assumption here is that there are only two possible conditions for task assignments: tasks that are too easy and tasks that are too difficult. This implies that the arguer believes no middle ground exists where tasks are appropriately challenging.
Identifying assumptions means you should ask yourself what the argument presupposes without evidence. If these assumptions are proven false or questionable, the argument's conclusion might not logically follow. In this case, questioning the assumption helps reveal a potential flaw: the argument does not consider the possibility of tasks being optimally challenging, which would allow workers to utilize their full potential. By spotlighting such assumptions, you can critically assess how they influence the strength and coherence of the argument.

Binary Conditions

Binary conditions are a common element in reasoning, wherein a situation is presented as having only two exclusive options or states. This all-or-nothing approach can sometimes oversimplify complex issues. In the exercise provided, the argument assumes a binary condition regarding task difficulty: tasks are either too easy, leading to boredom, or too difficult, leading to futility. This binary framework ignores any alternative possibilities, such as tasks that are just right, which could engage workers without overwhelming them.
The flaw in adopting a binary condition is that it artificially narrows down the problem's scope. It can lead to the false dilemma fallacy, where only two extreme choices are considered, ignoring any middle-ground solutions. This can be problematic as it fails to reflect the true complexity of real-life situations. By acknowledging binary conditions in arguments, you can better probe the completeness and depth of the reasoning. This understanding helps to discover if the argument indeed provides a thorough analysis of the issue or if it limits itself erroneously by overlooking other viable alternatives.