mbernstein04 Wrote:trying to figure out why b, interpreting regulations is a prerogative that belongs solely to supervisors is the correct answer. from what i understand the core looks something like:
premise 1 -- staff may be dismissed because personal views conflict with supervisors
premise 2 -- unsatisfactory performance is not defined
conclusion -- staff regulations are vague and difficult to interpret
Mbernstein! Glad to see you using the forums.
I'm also glad to see that you're working to find the argument core, but I think in this case you're a little off.
When we're trying to determine what the conclusion of an argument is, we want to figure out where the logic, where the "therefore," is happening. What part of the argument is the author trying to prove? By those standards, I think the first sentence -- "Our regulations for staff review are vague and thus difficult to interpret" -- is actually more like background information. It seems to be stated as fact; the sentence that follows is giving a specific example of the observed phenomenon, not explaining it.
So where is the core? Well, you seem to have overlooked the "thus" in the last sentence. This tips us off that what you labeled the two premises are actually a premise and a conclusion. The core then should look like this:
P: Regulations state that unsatisfactory performance leads to dismissal, but don't define unsatisfactory performance
----------> C: Staff may be dismissed merely because their views conflict their supervisors' views.
Now, if you don't totally buy my argument about the first sentence, I won't press the issue. I suppose there's an argument to be made that the given example functions as a supporting premise. But even so, that conclusion would have to be tacked on to the core we just spelled out; we would still have the intermediate conclusion about staff being dismissed. So there would still be logic to evaluate between those two statements, and the possibility of an assumption falling in there.
Now, what is that assumption? Well, we're told that "unsatisfactory performance" isn't defined and that, therefore, staff may be dismissed just for disagreeing with their supervisors. This seems to make sense; if there are no objective criteria, then it will be up to the people doing the evaluating to come up with subjective standards. But wait: who said it's just the supervisors doing the evaluating? What if staff evaluations are done by one's fellow staff-members? Or the janitor? Who knows? The argument is assuming that the supervisor is the only one doing the evaluating.
Answer (B) expresses that assumption, thereby strengthening the argument. If interpreting these vague regulations is solely the prerogative of supervisors, then it makes more sense to conclude that workers may be fired for disagreeing with them.
(A) is out of scope. The argument is about "unsatisfactory" performance, not at all about work that's below expectations.
(C) is out of scope. Answer for their performance?
(D) is out of scope. Subordinate positions?
(E) is, uh ... yeah, it's out of scope. When does the argument talk about fairness (or what employees think)?
So, Mr. B, does that clear this one up for you? Let me know if you're still hung up on how to spot the core.
