Passage Summary: If you aren't pushed, you don't do your best. Alex isn't doing his best, so he clearly wasn't pushed.

Conclusion: Alex has never been pressured to perform beyond his comfort level.

Reasoning: People who aren't pushed never reach their full potential, and since Alex hasn't reached his potential, he must not have been pushed.

Analysis: This argument commits the formal fallacy of 'affirming the consequent.' It establishes a conditional: 'If not pushed, then not doing all one can.' It then observes that the result (not doing all one can) is true and concludes the cause (not being pushed) must also be true. This is flawed because there could be many other reasons Alex isn't reaching his potential—maybe he's just tired or lacks the necessary tools. To match this, look for an answer that takes a 'If A, then B' rule and incorrectly concludes 'B, therefore A.'