Question

Nadia: Leaders in tech companies should have some background in software development. That kind of experience helps them understand the practical challenges their teams face and leads to better decision-making.
Omar: But just having a software background doesn't mean someone will be a good leader. Many engineers struggle with communication and team management.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in Omar's reasoning?

• A. He assumes that engineers cannot develop leadership skills over time.
• B. He criticizes a more extreme version of Nadia's position than she actually states.
• C. He confuses technical skill with leadership potential.
• D. He fails to consider whether all tech leaders need the same qualifications.
• E. He presumes that decision-making and communication skills are unrelated.

Hint:

In dialogue-based flaw questions, carefully compare the first person's claim with the second person's rebuttal. Look for mismatches in scope, certainty, or conditions. A common flaw is the "straw man" fallacy, where the rebuttal attacks a distorted or exaggerated version of the original claim.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept
This is a Critical Reasoning question that asks to identify a logical flaw in an argument. The flaw here is a "straw man" fallacy, where one person misrepresents the other's argument to make it easier to attack.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation


Nadia's Argument: She argues that tech leaders "should have some background" in software development because it is helpful for understanding challenges and making better decisions. She is proposing it as a beneficial, but not necessarily required or sufficient, condition.
Omar's Rebuttal: He argues that "just having a software background doesn't mean someone will be a good leader." He refutes the idea that a software background is a *sufficient* condition (a guarantee) for being a good leader, pointing out that engineers can lack other essential skills like communication.
The Flaw: Nadia never claimed that a software background guarantees good leadership. She only said it was a helpful quality. Omar misrepresents her nuanced position as an absolute one ("if you have a software background, you will be a good leader") and then attacks this new, weaker position. This is the essence of a straw man argument.
Step 3: Final Answer
Option (B) perfectly describes this flaw. Omar takes Nadia's suggestion that a background is helpful and treats it as an extreme, all-or-nothing claim that this background is the only thing needed for leadership. He criticizes this more extreme, unstated position.