Summary
Successful stand-up comedians keep the attention of their audiences for a few hours and in a way that the audience long after the performance remembers what the comedian said. Additionally, some comedians make points about serious topics in their routines. Comedians are able to accomplish all of these qualities through the use of humor. University professors hope to achieve these same qualities through their lectures.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Thus, the use of humor in lectures could help university professors achieve these qualities.
A
stand-up comedians and university professors have the same skill set
We don’t know anything about the skill set of a university professor. We only know about the qualities university professors hope to achieve through lectures.
B
incorporating humor into lectures can help professors to achieve the goals they have for those lectures
If the analogy between stand-up comedians and university professors holds, then the use of humor could help university professors achieve their goals for lectures.
C
university professors can achieve the goals they have for their lectures only if they incorporate humor into them
We don’t know if humor is the only means university professors could achieve their goals for lectures. The stimulus suggests that humor is one way, but not necessarily that humor is the only way.
D
there is no reason to suppose that a lecture lasting several hours cannot hold an audience’s attention
We don’t know that there’s no reason to think that lectures cannot keep an audience’s attention.
E
university professors should treat even the most serious topics in a humorous way
We don’t know what university professors should do. The stimulus only suggests that humor could help university professors achieve the goals they have for lectures.
Summary
The author concludes that the advice in management books is of limited use for most managers. This is based on the following:
Most management books offer advice from the perspective of the CEO.
Most managers don’t have the same perspective as CEOs.
Most management books offer advice from the perspective of the CEO.
Most managers don’t have the same perspective as CEOs.
Missing Connection
Why can’t a manager benefit from advice that isn’t written from their perspective? The premises never establish that in order to be of more than limited use, advice must be written from one’s own perspective.
A
Advice books rarely take the perspective of their intended audience.
(A) doesn’t establish anything about what is of “limited use.” We still have no idea why advice from the perspective of someone besides a manager can’t be of great use to a manager.
B
Most people who read management advice books aspire to be CEOs.
(B) doesn’t establish anything about what is of “limited use.” We still have no idea why advice from the perspective of someone besides a manager can’t be of great use to a manager.
C
Almost all CEOs have experience as lower level managers.
(C) doesn’t establish anything about what is of “limited use.” We still have no idea why advice from the perspective of someone besides a manager can’t be of great use to a manager.
D
Advice is of limited use unless it is offered from the perspective of the recipient.
(D) establishes that if advice is not offered from the perspective of the recipient — in this case, managers — then it will be of limited use. This is why advice from the perspective of CEOs, which is different from a manager’s perspective, is of limited use to most managers.
E
Most managers prefer to read books that they think will be useful to them in their work.
(E) doesn’t establish anything about what is of “limited use.” What managers “think will be useful” doesn’t establish that something is of limited use. We still have no idea why advice from the perspective of someone besides a manager can’t be of great use to a manager.
Summarize Argument
The mayor implies his conclusion: he didn’t take a bribe. He supports this claim by stating that he paid every bill presented to him for home improvements.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the mayor not to have taken a bribe, he must not have only paid every bill presented to him, but also not been aware of any bills that were paid without him knowing.
A
Authorities are investigating the consultant for taking bribes from officials of other cities.
We don’t care if the consultant took bribes. We only care if the mayor did.
B
The mayor was aware that many of the bills were being presented to the consultant rather than to the mayor.
The mayor paid every bill presented to him, but he knew many bills were being presented to the consultant, as well. Thus, his defence falls apart.
C
The building contractor in charge of the improvements to the mayor’s house had done business with the city in the past.
That contractor could still have offered a bribe. We don’t care if they have an employment history with the city.
D
The improvements to the mayor’s house were done with expensive materials and involved thousands of hours of labor.
We don’t care what those improvements were. We care who paid for them.
E
The amount of money that the city paid the consultant over the last year greatly exceeded the cost of the improvements to the mayor’s house.
The amount the city paid the consultant and the costs of the home improvements have nothing to do with each other. We simply care if the mayor took a bribe.