BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

labor

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
Thanked: 4 times

labor

by jainrahul1985 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:26 am
As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one of the nation's most powerful labor unions, Grayson is an excellent choice to chair the new council on business-labor relations.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?

(A) The new council must have the support of the nation's labor leaders if it is to succeed.
(B) During his years as a labor leader, Grayson established a record of good relations with business leaders.
(C) The chair of the new council must be a person who can communicate directly with the leaders of the nation's largest labor unions.
(D) Most of the other members of the new council will be representatives of business management interests.
(E) An understanding of the needs and problems of labor is the only qualification necessary for the job of chairing the new council.

OA [spoiler]E but I didn't understand why B is wrong[/spoiler]



Source :https://gmatclub.com/forum/labor-organizer-69478.html
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:11 am
IMO B
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Rourkela/Hyderabad
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by sanp_l » Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:21 am
I would go with E too.

Grayson is an excellent choice to chair the new council on business-labor relations. His roles or what is the criteria for chairing the new council on business-labor relations isn't clear. So, as a labor leader, Grayson established a record of good relations with business leaders as a fact doesn't strengthen the conclusion. It may or might not help. Had there been any details provided for the criteria or roles of chairing a council on business-labor relations, Option B might have helped us.

Option E strengthens Grayson's candidature and merits him as being a true winner. As understanding the needs and problems of the labor being the only criteria, Grayson suits the cause with his experience.

Hope it helps.
Sandy
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:08 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Thanked: 199 times
Followed by:85 members
GMAT Score:750

by tpr-becky » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:48 am
E is the right answer becuase if you only name a few criteria and say because of that a person would be good for a job you need to assume that those criteria are the only things in play when judging who would be good for a job.

B is incorrect because nothing in the argument actually says establishing good relations is something that would make someone a good candidate. Sure in real life showing how someone has done good things would make a difference in evaluating their ability to do a job - but on the GMAT the only thing that matters is what is said on the paper - here there is no connnection between B and the argument.
Becky
Master GMAT Instructor
The Princeton Review
Irvine, CA
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:11 am
received a pm.

Honestly, I don't think this question is good. What's the source?

Choice E is definitely "better" than choice B. But GMAT is not a "better" or "best" answer is exam. One choice--the correct answer--should strengthen while the others should not strengthen.

If understanding labor is the ONLY necessary qualification, then since Grayson comes only from the labor (not business) side, choice E clearly strengthens (by the way, extreme choices could easily be correct in stn/wkn).

From the argument, we learn that the council is on "business-labor" relations, and that Grayson comes only from the labor side. If choice B is true, it makes more likely (than not) the idea that Grayson would succeed in his role as chair of business-labor relations. Consider the converse. What if Grayson established bad relations with business leaders? Isn't it, then, clearly less likely that he will succeed as chair of business-labor relations? That is, the denial of choice B clearly weakens the argument. Choice B, therefore, also strengthens the argument. I can see where Becky is coming from, but I really don't think selection of choice B requires us to make any unwarranted assumptions. The passage tells us that the purpose of the council is business-labor reations--surely this must mean that the council is out to improve (make good or better) and not diminish business-labor relations. Choice B falls flatly within the scope created by the argument.

What's the source?
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:34 pm
Hi TestLuv,

Could you elaborate how B is falling out of scope in the context of the argument. Do you mean from point of view of time ie since Grayson had good relations with biz leaders during his tenure as labor leader does not guarntee that he has the same relations now. Is this you are trying to emphasize.

Thanks
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1