Critical Reasoning

Q15:
Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy. Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however, use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses. Clearly, corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.

In the consultant’s reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.
B. The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal.
C. The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem.
D. The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon.
E. The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification; the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that justification.

imo:A

OA??

IMO also A

The first bold part tells titles should not be used. The following sentence in the argument tells why they should not be used.

The second bold part talks about how titles can be useful. Hence highlighting a drawback to the first strategy.

IMO B

IMO B

Vishu

Instructors please help with this CR. IMO B.

-Thanks in Advance

IMO B

the answer is (a)

let's take a look at what we're working with:

Some corporations shun the use of executive titles

> this is a fact. some corporations do not use executive titles. but why?

because they fear that tiles will inhibit communication within the company. ok fine.

next:

use of a title can facilitate an executive's dealings with external businesses

> but using a title can be good for external communication.

so basically what the passage is saying is: some companies are afraid using titles will inhibit internal communication, so they don't use them. but titles can be good for external communication. so companies should compromise.

now, what are the bold-faced parts saying?

(a) the first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem
> yes -- "strategy" = not using titles; "certain problem" = inhibits internal communication
the second presents a drawback to that strategy
> yes -- "drawback" = but using a title can be good for external communication; "strategy" = not using titles

(b) the first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem
> yes, see above
the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal
> no -- the second statement does not address how well the strategy (not using titles) achieves the goal (don't inhibit internal communication). rather, the second statement talks about how sometimes the strategy is not great for external communication.

(c) the first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem
> yes, see above
the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem
> no -- the second statement does not talk about "that problem" (the problem of inhibiting internal communication), it only talks about external communication

(d) the first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon
> no -- it's not an explanation, it's a fact. some companies do not use titles. period.
the second is that phenomenon
> no -- what phenomenon? there is no phenomenon

(e) the first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide justification
> no -- the consultant doesn't want to "provide justification" -- they later say that they think companies should not use this policy (not using titles), but should instead compromise.
the second is a consideration the consultant raises as a part of that justification
> no -- again, the consultant is not trying to justify the policy