Repair job CR question

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:03 am
Thanked: 3 times

Repair job CR question

by tracyyahoo » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:04 am
A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company's warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

A. There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.
B. There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.
C. Ace Repairs' warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.
D. Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.
E. There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.


OA is A, because I don't understand because clearly the arg says "clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs. " when negate (A) there is a difference which doesn't weaken the conclusion.

I chose E, but why A? Pls explain me
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:07 am
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:14 members
GMAT Score:750

by CappyAA » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:42 am
Try negating A again. It actually does weaken the conclusion. Negating A says that there is some systematic difference in memberships between the group of mechanics who do 1st time jobs and those that do rework jobs. The author says that the rework jobs are always done correctly. His conclusion is that this is not due to a lack of competence by the mechanics, but rather by gained concentration in the 2nd jobs. So he makes an assumption that the same set of mechanics are working on the first job as are working on the rework. If there is a second group of mechanics that takes care of the reworks, than the faulty first repairs could have been the result of incompetent mechanics.
Taking the GMAT Again...PhD this time!

October 2008 Score: GMAT - 750 (50 Q, 41 V) :D

Manhattan GMAT 1 - 11/20/11 - 750 (50 Q, 42 V)
Manhattan GMAT 2 - 12/3/11 - 780 (51 Q, 45 V)

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Delhi, India
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:9 members

by vaibhavgupta » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:06 am
tracyyahoo wrote:A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company's warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

A. There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.
B. There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.
C. Ace Repairs' warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.
D. Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.
E. There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.


OA is A, because I don't understand because clearly the arg says "clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs. " when negate (A) there is a difference which doesn't weaken the conclusion.

I chose E, but why A? Pls explain me
I think you just fell in the trap of going for the one which was last. The right assumption will be the one without which u cannot logically reach the conclusion.

In E , i could argue that even though there exists a category of jobs which carries out first time jobs satisfactorily, it does not necessarily negate the fact that the other jobs failure has anything to do with concentration.

Hope this helps! :)

Legendary Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by mankey » Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:47 am
IMO: A. What is the OA?

Thanks
Mankey

Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by adi_800 » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:06 am
E talks about only repair jobs and the argument is about complex repair jobs..
So saying that there is NO category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs.... is not warranted by the argument ...

Can anyone confirm whether this reasoning is appropriate ??