Critical Reasoning

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.

OA: A

I am dead stuck on bold face CR questions. Please let me know how to approach this one? Please help me out with a simple and good strategy to tackle such question. Most of the ones that I have done so far were incorrect.

Thanks.

I will explain this particular problem in a second post...first let me just talk to you about bold faced questions in particular. (Lots of people have asked about bold-faced questions lately).

Here is a simple strategy that I have found works well:

Start the problem as you should for any "normal" critical reasoning problem. Normal means that the stimulus is likely to have a conclusion - so inference and paradox are the two question types that are consistently "not normal."

So this means begin by identifying the main conclusion. There may not be a main conclusion on a bold faced problem. The stimulus might be a paradox for example, but there usually is a main conclusion, so if there is one find it. If there is not, don't worry about it just figure out why there is no main conclusion (is it a paradox for example?).

Once you have the main conclusion take each bold statement and ask yourself three things:

1) Is there a clear role for the statement? Categories are "Prediction" "main conclusion" "evidence" "opinion" etc. If the role of the statement is not clear then proceed to the next step.

2) How does the statement relate to the main conclusion? Is it the conclusion? Is it evidence in support of the conclusion? Does it undermine the conclusion? etc...

3) How does the statement relate to the other statement? Does it support the other statement? Does the other bold support it? Does it undermine the other statement? etc...

If you understand these three things - usually not too hard to do on most questions - then you are ready to work through the answer choices pretty efficiently.


These are some bold-faced questions that I wrote and then discussed:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/bold-faced-f ... tml#307471

https://www.beatthegmat.com/salt-water-p ... tml#291765

https://www.beatthegmat.com/bold-faced-e ... tml#293014


Here are some other bold-faced questions that I discussed:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/bold-faced-f ... tml#307471

https://www.beatthegmat.com/bold-faced-q ... tml#294134


And here is one about the crazy bold faced that only have one portion in bold and you have to choose the best replacement rather than describing it!

https://www.beatthegmat.com/useless-bott ... 66646.html

Hope it helps!

I believe this problem may be from the Official GMAT Paper Tests (so older than the computer adaptive test). Try to cite the source whenever you can so that we give proper credit and know where it the question came from. I try to look up the questions that I respond to and give a source when I can.

Let's apply the above technique to this question:

First the conclusion:

Clearly, corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally..."

Normally I would work to understand the full logic of the problem, but for a bold-faced we can stop here and go to the three questions about each bold portion.

For the first portion in bold:Some corporations shun the use of executive titles

1) (Is there a clear role for the statement?) This bold portion just states a behavior of some companies

2) (How does this relate to the main conclusion?) The main conclusion recommends modifying this behavior -- to use titles externally

3) (How does it relate to the other bold portion?) The other bold portion gives a reason to modify the behavior stated in the first.

Now we are ready to eliminate some answer choices:

A and B are consistent with what the first portion does. The difference between these is subtle so we will have to come back to these answers.

Choice C is consistent with the first portion, but the second portion recommends modifying the strategy it does not question the underlying problem. We can eliminate this because it does not describe the relationship between the two statements correctly.

Choice D is eliminated because of how it relates the first statement to the main conclusion. In the main conclusion the consultant recommends modifying the strategy in the first statement.

Choice E is eliminated for the same reason as D, the consultant is not seeking to justify the policy. He advocates that the policy be modified.

So that takes us back to A and B, which need to be further explained. So the question comes down to this: Does the second portion present a drawback to the strategy of not using executive titles? Or does the second portion question the effectiveness of not using titles as a means of enhancing communication?

It is clearly A. The second portion is a drawback of the strategy that is not related to the goal of enhanced communication it is a drawback that is based on outsiders not insiders. B would be correct if the second portion described an internal problem with the strategy to not use titles.

Does that make sense? this is not an easy question I have seen this debated in other places and this is considered a pretty tough question.

Thanks David. Your responses really helped me. That 3-question strategy in your 1st post is really good. That helps to eliminate the wrong options!