Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardTime Shift Flaws (Past vs. Future)

Human Resources Director: A decade ago, our firm implemented a mandatory weekly in-person brainstorming policy, which directly caused a significant improvement in our productivity and innovation metrics over the following year. As we restructure our operations next quarter, we will reinstate this exact same policy. Clearly, this action will once again lead to a similar surge in productivity and innovation.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the Human Resources Director's argument?

  1. A
    trades on an ambiguity in the term 'innovation', using it to refer to both individual efficiency and collective brainstorming
  2. B
    takes for granted that the weekly in-person policy was the primary cause of the past productivity improvements, rather than a coincidental event
  3. takes for granted that the circumstances that allowed the policy to succeed in the past will be present when the policy is implemented in the futureAnswer
  4. D
    takes for granted that because the policy caused some improvement in productivity, it must have caused the most significant improvement possible
  5. E
    mistakes a premise providing historical background for a subsidiary conclusion intended to support the argument's main prediction

Answer

The option stating that the argument takes for granted that the circumstances that allowed the policy to succeed in the past will be present when the policy is implemented in the future.
The argument bases its entire prediction about future success on a single historical precedent from a decade ago. This reasoning is flawed because it ignores the high likelihood that relevant corporate circumstances—such as remote work capabilities, workforce demographics, or communication technologies—have fundamentally changed over ten years, potentially altering how effective the policy will be today.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument into its structural components.
Premise: A decade ago, a specific policy directly caused productivity to improve. Conclusion: Reinstating the same policy next quarter will cause a similar improvement.
Identifying the premise and conclusion is required to locate the logical gap in the author's reasoning.
2
Analyze the logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
The argument moves from a historical fact (an event ten years ago) to a future prediction (next quarter) without demonstrating that the two time periods are comparable.
Evaluating how the premise supports the conclusion reveals unwarranted assumptions.
3
Identify the specific flaw archetype.
The argument commits a Time Shift Flaw by assuming that a static environment has persisted over a decade.
Categorizing the flaw allows for quick matching with the correct abstract description in the options.

Key Concept

Time Shift Flaws occur when an argument assumes, without justification, that conditions operating in the past will continue to operate in the future, or that historical trends will persist unchanged.
Rate this question

Topics

Time Shift Flaws (Past vs. Future)

More questions from this topic