Critical Reasoning

Critics of sales seminars run by outside consultants point out that since 1987, revenues of vacuum cleaner companies whose employees attended consultant-led seminars were lower than revenues of vacuum cleaner companies whose employees did not attend such seminars. The critics charge that for vacuum cleaner companies, the sales seminars are ill conceived and a waste of money.


Which of the following, if true, is the most effective challenge to the critics of sales seminars?

(A) Those vacuum cleaner companies whose sales were highest prior to 1987 are the only companies that did not send employees to the seminars.
(B) Vacuum cleaner companies that have sent employees to sales seminars since 1987 experienced a greater drop in sales than they had prior to 1987.
(C) The cost of vacuum cleaner sales seminars run by outside consultants has risen dramatically since 1987.

(D) The poor design of vacuum cleaner sales seminars is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.
(E) Since 1987, sales of vacuum cleaners have risen twenty percent.

OA after discussion .. Please post the reasoning as well

(A) Those vacuum cleaner companies whose sales were highest prior to 1987 are the only companies that did not send employees to the seminars.

The companies with the highest sales prior to 1987 are the ONLY companies not to send employees to the seminar. Well, they probably are going to maintain the highest sales regardless if they send employees to the seminar or not. Therefore, this would weaken the argument.

(B) Vacuum cleaner companies that have sent employees to sales seminars since 1987 experienced a greater drop in sales than they had prior to 1987.

This would strengthen, not weaken the argument.

(C) The cost of vacuum cleaner sales seminars run by outside consultants has risen dramatically since 1987.

This is irrelevant.

(D) The poor design of vacuum cleaner sales seminars is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.

This is irrelevant.

(E) Since 1987, sales of vacuum cleaners have risen twenty percent.

This is irrelevant.


I choose A.

p:Critics of sales seminars run by outside consultants point out that since 1987, revenues of vacuum cleaner companies whose employees attended consultant-led seminars were lower than revenues of vacuum cleaner companies whose employees did not attend such seminars

c:The critics charge that for vacuum cleaner companies, the sales seminars are ill conceived and a waste of money.

Here we can assume that,

Assumption:1)revenues and other factors were same at the start
2)There were no other factors other than seminars that
affected the revenues.

We can weaken by attacking any of the assumption..

(A) Those vacuum cleaner companies whose sales were highest prior to 1987 are the only companies that did not send employees to the seminars. -Correct

sales were already higher,which might have led to higher revenues.Thus even if the companies employees who attended the seminars have made progress,will go unnoticed in comparison to the already high revenues of the companies who did not sent employees for seminars.Thus it weakens the conclusion.

(B) Vacuum cleaner companies that have sent employees to sales seminars since 1987 experienced a greater drop in sales than they had prior to 1987.

This strengthens the conclusion to some extent.


(C) The cost of vacuum cleaner sales seminars run by outside consultants has risen dramatically since 1987.

cost of seminars is irrelevent.

(D) The poor design of vacuum cleaner sales seminars is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.

this strengthens the conclusion by stating that there are other reasons for ineffectiveness.

(E) Since 1987, sales of vacuum cleaners have risen twenty percent.

Percentage!!We dont have the initial figures of sales . Also sales of which companies?Those whose employees attended the seminars or of those who didnt attend?

thanks.

i hope this helps.

raunekk wrote:p:Critics of sales seminars run by outside consultants point out that since 1987, revenues of vacuum cleaner companies whose employees attended consultant-led seminars were lower than revenues of vacuum cleaner companies whose employees did not attend such seminars

c:The critics charge that for vacuum cleaner companies, the sales seminars are ill conceived and a waste of money.

Here we can assume that,

Assumption:1)revenues and other factors were same at the start
2)There were no other factors other than seminars that
affected the revenues.

We can weaken by attacking any of the assumption..

(A) Those vacuum cleaner companies whose sales were highest prior to 1987 are the only companies that did not send employees to the seminars. -Correct

sales were already higher,which might have led to higher revenues.Thus even if the companies employees who attended the seminars have made progress,will go unnoticed in comparison to the already high revenues of the companies who did not sent employees for seminars.Thus it weakens the conclusion.

(B) Vacuum cleaner companies that have sent employees to sales seminars since 1987 experienced a greater drop in sales than they had prior to 1987.

This strengthens the conclusion to some extent.


(C) The cost of vacuum cleaner sales seminars run by outside consultants has risen dramatically since 1987.

cost of seminars is irrelevent.

(D) The poor design of vacuum cleaner sales seminars is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.

this strengthens the conclusion by stating that there are other reasons for ineffectiveness.

(E) Since 1987, sales of vacuum cleaners have risen twenty percent.

Percentage!!We dont have the initial figures of sales . Also sales of which companies?Those whose employees attended the seminars or of those who didnt attend?

thanks.

i hope this helps.

I agree with u raunekk ,I ended up marking A as well. but then after repeated reading , i some how feel the Question is not properly drafted. we need to assume too many things. Apart from the ones u mentioned,
we also need to assume that those companies whose revenues were highest prior to 1987 , still continue to have a higher revenue even after 1987 vis- a - vis other companies

Why not C?

The final line of the stimulus says that
"The critics charge that for vacuum cleaner companies, the sales seminars are ill conceived and a waste of money. "

and the question asked is "most effective challenge to the critics of sales seminars? "

Option C says "The cost of vacuum cleaner sales seminars run by outside consultants has risen dramatically since 1987. "

So if the cost of the seminars has increased doesnt it mean that there is a demand for the these kinda seminars and that they may not be indeed waste of money?

raajan_p wrote:Why not C?

The final line of the stimulus says that
"The critics charge that for vacuum cleaner companies, the sales seminars are ill conceived and a waste of money. "

and the question asked is "most effective challenge to the critics of sales seminars? "

Option C says "The cost of vacuum cleaner sales seminars run by outside consultants has risen dramatically since 1987. "

So if the cost of the seminars has increased doesnt it mean that there is a demand for the these kinda seminars and that they may not be indeed waste of money?

@raajan, you are assuming too much to make C correct.
The cost increase could happen from variety of reasons!!

(A) Those vacuum cleaner companies whose sales were highest prior to 1987 are the only companies that did not send employees to the seminars.

it means that the sales has dropped after 1987. So, we can infer that,eventhough they didn't attend the seminar, the sales dropped, hence the critics conclusion can be challenged.

A

I will Go with option A in this case.