Critical Reasoning

Division manager: I want to replace the Microton computers in my division with Vitech computers.
General manager: Why?
Division manager: It costs 28 percent less to train new staff on the Vitech.
General manager: But that is not a good enough reason. We can simply hire only people who already know how to use the Microton computer.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the general manager's objection to the replacement of Microton computers with Vitechs?

(A) Currently all employees in the company are required to attend workshops on how to use Microton computers in new applications.
(B) Once employees learn how to use a computer, they tend to change employers more readily than before.
(C) Experienced users of Microton computers command much higher salaries than do prospective employees who have no experience in the use of computers.
(D) The average productivity of employees in the general managerт�Щs company is below the average productivity of the employees of its competitors.
(E) The high costs of replacement parts make Vitech computers more expensive to maintain than Microton computers.

OA: C

Verbal Experts - Although I got this one, I'd like to know whether my understanding on the INCORRECT options (especially B and E) is right or not ?

Option B is wrong because it seems to be WEIRD.

In one hand Option B STRENGTHENS the general manager's objection to the replacement of Microton computers with Vitechs, when we consider they're switching from Previous employer to Current company in the argument.

On the other hand, it seems that Option B WEAKENS the general manager's objection, when we consider those folks might even switch from the company in the argument to any other company more quickly than usual. So, it means hiring those folks might NOT be a good decision (most likely in the mid to long term...)

Option E is wrong because it seems to STRENGTHEN the FIRST portion of general manager's objection -- But that is not a good enough reason. BUT, it appears to be IRRELEVANT to the general manager's objection OVERALL, especially considering the SECOND part of the objection!

Please correct me if wrong!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Verbal Experts - Although I got this one, I'd like to know whether my understanding on the INCORRECT options (especially B and E) is right or not ?

Option B is wrong because it seems to be WEIRD.

In one hand Option B STRENGTHENS the general manager's objection to the replacement of Microton computers with Vitechs, when we consider they're switching from Previous employer to Current company in the argument.

On the other hand, it seems that Option B WEAKENS the general manager's objection, when we consider those folks might even switch from the company in the argument to any other company more quickly than usual. So, it means hiring those folks might NOT be a good decision (most likely in the mid to long term...)

Option D is wrong because it seems to STRENGTHEN the FIRST portion of general manager's objection -- But that is not a good enough reason. BUT, it appears to be IRRELEVANT to the general manager's objection OVERALL, especially considering the SECOND part of the objection!

Please correct me if wrong!

Well, I don't know if weirdness alone is sufficient to disqualify an answer choice from consideration, but you're certainly right that B is problematic
If anything, B strengthens the general manager's contention that the company should hire people who have already been trained to use the microton computer. If employees become more likely to leave once you train them to use a new computer, such training becomes a questionable investment. (Or you can argue that B is irrelevant, as the employees had to learn to use the microton computer at some point. So either they learned to use microton pre-employment, making them more likely to change jobs in the future, or if they follow the Division manager's advice, they'll have to learn to use the Vitech computer once hired, making them more likely to switch jobs. There's no getting around learning how to use a computer at a job that requires that employees use a computer. Either way, this doesn't weaken the general manager's assertion.)

D is irrelevant. We're not told anything about the productivity levels of microton users vs. the productivity levels of Vitech users. It's possible that productivity levels are lower at this company because the employees are simply less competent or their managers don't provide the requisite supervision/motivation, etc.

Hi Dave,
Few clarifications required on your reply.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:If anything, B strengthens the general manager's contention that the company should hire people who have already been trained to use the microton computer.

This is perfect!

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:If employees become more likely to leave once you train them to use a new computer, such training becomes a questionable investment.

BUT how the portion in RED (in your IMMEDIATE above quote) is FEASIBLE ? Because per the General manager's argument once the company hires ONLY people who already know how to use the Microton computer, I think, then there is NO NEED to train them on Microton further as such,within the SCOPE of this CR (moreover,as the GM already invalidates the need to switch to Vitech, so NO TRAINING is required on this front as well) -- so question of INVESTMENT in TRAINING shouldn't arise as far as Option B is concerned within the SCOPE of this CR! Isn't it ?

Now,the DOWNSIDE of Option B could be that these EXPERIENCED folks ALREADY trained in Microton might even switch from the company in the argument to any other company more quickly than USUAL. So, it means hiring those folks might NOT be a good decision (most likely in the mid to long term...) in terms of resolving the issue of lack of Microton-trained employees at the company at hand. So, in this aspect DOESN'T Option B seem to CAST DOUBT on the general manager's objection ?

Hence,based on the above TWO ASPECTS of Option B (one clearly STRENGTHENS and another WEAKENS), thus Option B is DEFINITELY NOT the GOOD FIT to be the OA that should ONLY WEAKEN the general manager's objection.

Could you please let me know your thoughts on my above analysis ?

As for your second reply: really sorry for the TYPO in the second part of my above post on Option E. I typed D INSTEAD of E.

So, re-posting my query on Option E to get your clarifications:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Option E is wrong because it seems to STRENGTHEN the FIRST portion of general manager's objection -- But that is not a good enough reason. BUT, it appears to be IRRELEVANT to the general manager's objection OVERALL, especially considering the SECOND part of the objection!

Please let me know your feedback!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Dave,
Few clarifications required on your reply.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:If anything, B strengthens the general manager's contention that the company should hire people who have already been trained to use the microton computer.

This is perfect!

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:If employees become more likely to leave once you train them to use a new computer, such training becomes a questionable investment.

BUT how the portion in RED (in your IMMEDIATE above quote) is FEASIBLE ? Because per the General manager's argument once the company hires ONLY people who already know how to use the Microton computer, I think, then there is NO NEED to train them on Microton further as such,within the SCOPE of this CR (moreover,as the GM already invalidates the need to switch to Vitech, so NO TRAINING is required on this front as well) -- so question of INVESTMENT in TRAINING shouldn't arise as far as Option B is concerned within the SCOPE of this CR! Isn't it ?

My point was simply that if the division manager is advocating a solution that requires training, and the general manager is advocating a solution that doesn't require training, then an answer choice illustrating that training is a poor investment would strengthen the general manager's stance with respect to the division manager's stance. Put another way, because the general manager's solution doesn't require training, if B is true, his plan allows the company to avoid the poor investment recommended by the division manager. In any event, B certainly doesn't undermine the general manager's argument.

Now,the DOWNSIDE of Option B could be that these EXPERIENCED folks ALREADY trained in Microton might even switch from the company in the argument to any other company more quickly than USUAL. So, it means hiring those folks might NOT be a good decision (most likely in the mid to long term...) in terms of resolving the issue of lack of Microton-trained employees at the company at hand. So, in this aspect DOESN'T Option B seem to CAST DOUBT on the general manager's objection ?

Well, potential employees will need to have learned to use some computer at some point. So if learning to use a Microton computer renders employees likely to switch jobs and learning to use a Vitech computer renders employees likely to switch jobs, then everyone is likely to switch jobs. If this is true, then devoting company time and money for additional training would be a questionable investment. So even with this interpretation, B doesn't weaken the general manager's stance with respect to the division manager's stance.

Could you please let me know your thoughts on my above analysis ?

As for your second reply: really sorry for the TYPO in the second part of my above post on Option E. I typed D INSTEAD of E.

So, re-posting my query on Option E to get your clarifications:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Option E is wrong because it seems to STRENGTHEN the FIRST portion of general manager's objection -- But that is not a good enough reason. BUT, it appears to be IRRELEVANT to the general manager's objection OVERALL, especially considering the SECOND part of the objection!

E is doing the opposite of what we want. The general manager is advocating for the continued use of Microton computers. If the replacement parts of the Vitech computers are more expensive than the Microton computers, that would be evidence in favor of his stance. We're looking for reasons to undermine his position.

Hi Dave,
Much thanks for your DETAILED reply.

While I COMPLETELY get your point of view for the FIRST part of your FIRST reply on Option B and SECOND reply on Option E, unfortunately I couldn't get the SECOND part of your FIRST reply on Option B. (This is based on your TODAY's replies...)

However, we still have AT LEAST ONE good reason to eliminate Option B.