Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:The ability of top managers to use both styles of decision making is not required for the conclusion (intuition is more effective than methodical) to be true. If they can use both, that could add evidence that intuition is better. However, on an Assumption question, the correct answer doesn't merely strengthen; it must be true for the argument to be true.

If we negate B, it would say that top managers DO NOT have the ability to use both styles. This would mean that they are using intuition out of necessity rather than by choice, but how does it affect the conclusion? It doesn't.

If we negate E (top managers ARE NOT more effective...), then the argument falls apart. The conclusion is based on the premise that top managers use intuition more than lower managers do and thus intuition is better. If we can't say that top managers are better, it's hard to conclude that intuition is better.

agarwalva wrote:Traditionally, decision-making by managers that is reasoned step-by-step has been considered preferable to intuitive decision-making. However, a recent study found that top managers used intuition significantly more than did most middle- or lower-level managers. This confirms the alternative view that intuition is actually more effective than careful, methodical reasoning.
The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Methodical, step-by-step reasoning is inappropriate for making many real-life management decisions.
(B) Top managers have the ability to use either intuitive reasoning or methodical, step-by-step reasoning in making decisions.
(C) The decisions made by middle- and lower-level managers can be made as easily by using methodical reasoning as by using intuitive reasoning.
(D) Top managers use intuitive reasoning in making the majority of their decisions.
(E) Top managers are more effective at decision-making than middle- or lower-level managers