LSAT 104 – Section 1 – Question 25

LSAT 104 - Section 1 - Question 25

December 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:01

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT104 S1 Q25
+LR
Except +Exc
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
5%
165
B
77%
170
C
4%
159
D
5%
164
E
10%
165
147
157
168
 +Harder 149.106 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

When interviewing job candidates, personnel managers not only evaluate a candidate’s work experience and educational background but also inquire about hobbies. Personnel managers try to justify these inquiries by noting that the enthusiasm someone shows for a hobby may well carry over to enthusiasm for a job. But such enthusiasm may also indicate that the candidate is less concerned with work than with play. Therefore personnel managers should not inquire about a candidate’s hobbies.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that personnel managers should not ask about job candidates’ hobbies because a candidate’s enthusiasm for a hobby might indicate that he cares more about play than work.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that managers shouldn’t ask about candidates’ hobbies. However, she overlooks any possible benefits of asking candidates about their hobbies. For example, a candidate’s hobbies may indicate other skills and abilities and may provide managers with a more complete understanding of the candidate.

Also, even if a candidate’s enthusiasm does indicate that the candidate is less concerned with work than with play, the author never explains why this is negative. Perhaps it’s helpful for managers to learn this information in interviews.

A
A candidate’s involvement in particular hobbies may indicate a capacity to make long-term commitments.
If a candidate’s hobby shows his ability to make long-term commitments, managers might benefit from asking about hobbies to assess this. The author overlooks this potential benefit.
B
Candidates who have no hobbies may pretend that they have one when asked in an interview.
This presents another potential downside of asking candidates’ about their hobbies: the candidates might lie. Thus, (B) isn’t an example of a potential benefit of asking about hobbies that the author overlooked.
C
Inquiries about a hobby may put candidates at ease, eliciting more honest responses about important questions.
If asking candidates about hobbies leads to more honest answers, it could be helpful for managers to ask. The author overlooks this potential benefit.
D
Having certain kinds of hobbies may indicate that a candidate has good organizational skills.
Asking about a candidate’s hobbies may teach a manager something about that candidate’s organizational skills. The author overlooks this potential benefit.
E
Personnel managers may make better choices among candidates if they are not restricted from asking particular types of questions.
(E) suggests that if managers are allowed to ask about candidates’ hobbies, they may make better hiring decisions. The author overlooks this potential benefit of asking about hobbies.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 104 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply