Applying
the strategy - Item #1: Interpreting "in the firm's best
interest" - Interpreting the firm's best interest as meaning
in its financial interest is based on two contextual elements: First
that the question is set in the context of business transactions
rather than other possible kinds of personal or social issues which
might emerge in the workplace; and, second, that the details provided
in the body of the question and its four answer choices are about
time and money. Financial interests are not the only potential concerns
Sylvia's firm might have. Good critical thinking not only enables
one to recognize the multiplicity of possible interpretations, it
also enables one to make a prudent choice among them. In this case,
given all that is said and not said about Sylvia, her productivity,
her work habits, and her job satisfaction, it would unreasonable
to interpret "in the best interest of Sylvia's firm" as
meaning something other than in its financial interest.
Focusing
on costs, therefore, the reasoning tasks become analyzing each of
the four options and drawing correct inferences as their respective
financial impacts. The final critical thinking tasks are to compare
the projected costs of each option and to select the one which would
be the least costly to the firm. Along the way the person with strong
critical thinking skills would be monitoring his or her own reasoning,
vigilant for possible errors in calculating the costs or errors
in properly analyzing the details of each of the four choices. The
person might reason as follows:
Option (A) would cost $700. The $500 paid to Ed's Phone Repair
Shop and the $200 of lost profits Sylvia would otherwise have been
expected to generate in the 30 minutes between 10:00 a.m. when the
phone broke down and 10:30 a.m. when the replacement phone is in
place.
Option (B) will cost nothing for the phone, since the instrument
is already in inventory. But it will cost the firm six hours of
net revenue, which is $2400, because Sylvia will not be able to
make calls until tomorrow.
Option (C) would cost $875 or a bit more. That figure comes
from the two hours of lost time between 10:00 am and Noon, plus
the $75 to reimburse Sylvia for the cost of the new phone, plus
perhaps whatever little bit of additional profits would be lost
in the few minutes it would take Sylvia to install that new phone
herself.
Option (D) requires that Sylvia not have a working phone
for four hours, not counting the noon hour which she spends at lunch,
and thus it would cost the firm approximately $1600 or perhaps more.
Answer
-- Item #1: Option A, for it costs the firm the least financially.
Click
to revisit sample Item #1
Click
to go on to Sample Item #2
Solution
Strategy - Item #2: The reasoning task here is to evaluate
how well the speaker makes the case for not reducing reliance on
petroleum vehicle fuels. That evaluation requires determining how
fair-minded the speaker was in presenting and critiquing the major
arguments for the opposite point of view, and determining how strong
the reasons are which the speaker presented for the view he is defending.
To address these questions well one must momentarily set aside one's
own opinions on the issue at hand so as not to be distracted from
evaluating the speaker.
Applying
the Strategy - Item #2: The speaker identifies three arguments
in favor of reducing reliance on petroleum fuels. One is the influence
of foreign leaders on our nation's economy. The second is the environment.
And the third is the potential to exhaust that resource. The speaker's
strategy is not so much to make the case in favor of continuing
to rely petroleum fuels, but rather to attack the arguments for
the opposite view. The speaker's reasoning is roughly like this:
"There are three reasons not to rob banks, two of which are
not very good in my estimation; so it is fine to rob banks."
This is an "I'm right because you're wrong" approach.
It ignores the possibility that both are wrong. Thus reasoning to
the best answer choice from among those provided requires taking
each option in turn to see which choice comes the closest to expressing
the judgment that the speaker has failed to give due consideration
to the full range of the opposition's point of view, or, failing
to find that choice among those given, finding instead a choice
that says that the speaker has not presented good and sufficient
reasons for the view espoused.
Option
(A) is not acceptable first because it puts the speaker's reasoning
in the "solid" category, which it is not; and second because
it asserts that the speaker showed the weaknesses of the arguments
for reducing reliance, which is a task the speaker did not complete.
Option (B) again puts the speaker's reasoning in the "solid"
category, an error in the overall evaluation of the speaker. This
option also presents considerations which are secondary, but not
primary in evaluating reasoning. The speaker may be delivering his
or her opinion in a clear and forceful way, and may be forthright
in declaring reasons, but clarity (like forcefulness or self- confidence)
by itself does not make the opinion correct or the reasons cogent.
Option (C) puts us on the right track for it correctly categorizes
the reasoning as "weak". Unfortunately the reason given
in this option is simply an unsupported ad hominem attack on the
speaker. Whatever the speaker's financial interests may be, and
however much those may or may not have moved the speaker in one
direction or another on this issue, we can evaluate the speaker's
arguments independent of those interests.
Option (D) is correct in its categorization of the reasoning
as "weak". And it rightly notes that the speaker failed
to address one of the three important arguments for the opposite
point of view.
Answer
- Item #2: Option (D) is the best among the choices provided.
Note
- Item #2: If other options had been provided, we might not
have selected Option (D). For example we were not given an "Option
(E)" which might have said "weak: The speaker's optimism
about future technology is unfounded, the speaker's cynicism about
the political influence of big oil companies on energy policies
does make us wonder about how much control foreign interests will
have, and waging war for oil is not a sensible foreign policy."
Nor were we given a question prompt that had the speaker making
a stronger case for his or her view with statements like: "For
the foreseeable future our best hybrid technology only reduces,
but does not eliminate our reliance on petroleum vehicle fuels,"
or "There will be tremendous costs associated with building
the infrastructure to produce, distribute, and use alternative vehicle
fuels." This brings to mind the point that on a test like this
one must focus on the question and the choices as they are given.
Click
to revisit Sample Item #2
Click
to go on to Sample Item #3
Solution Strategy - Item #3: Focus on the set of statements
which constitute the reason given and determine whether or not,
if those statements were all true, the claim being made about the
General would then be certainly true, probably true, probably false,
or certainly false.
Applying the Strategy - Item #3: This question would have
been easier had the statements which constitute the reason been
presented in more absolute terms. For example: "All politicians
use evasive language. The General is a politician. So, therefore,
the General uses evasive language." But, that is not what we
are given here. Instead the statements are presented with qualifications
such as "most politicians" do such and such; or, "I
find it hard to imagine" such and such. "Most" does
not mean "all," and "hard to imagine" does not
mean "impossible." These suggest that arriving at an absolute
certainty, as suggested in Option (A) or Option (D) is not likely.
The analysis which leads us away from those two options is confirmed
when we note that even the idea that the General is a politician
is more by way of describing how the General must behave, rather
than being a firm categorization. And, yet, the argument as a whole
makes sense. It is true that effective leaders have to be politically
savvy. It is true that political sensitivity requires one to use
language that can present a message without unduly alienating people.
And often this can mean being somewhat evasive, at least in contrast
to being confrontational or in-your-face offensive in how you present
decisions, ideas, and information.
Option
(A) is rejected because the claim might possibly be false,
although that is not very likely.
Option (B) seems the most reasonable, for it recognizes
the political realities of successful leadership but does not
go all the way in the opposite direction of requiring that the
General must never ever have used evasive language.
Option (C) is not the best choice here, for it goes too
far in the direction of saying that the General probably has never
used evasive language.
Option (D) is rejected for although the claim is probably
true, it may in fact turn out that this particular General is
the shining exception, which is compatible with the set of premises
as given.
Answer
- Item #3: Option (B).
Click
to revisit Sample Item #3
