Critical Reasoning

A shortage of orders for Manto Aircraft's airliners has led analysts to predict that the manufacturer will have to lay off workers, the new order that consolidated airlines has just made for 20 of Manto's model TX jets does not provide a reason for the analysts to revise their predictions, because simultaneously with its new order, consolidated canceled its existing order for an equal number of manto's larger, more expensive model Z jets.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Manto relies more heavily on outside subcontractors to provide the labor to manufacture the model Z than it does the model TX
B. The Manto employees who currently work to manufacture the model Z are not proficient at manufacturing the model TX
C. Manto includes all required maintenance work for the first five years in the price of each jet it sells
D. Manto has had to lay off workers several times within the past ten years but has typically rehired many of the workers when it subsequently received new orders
E. A large number of the airliners in consolidated fleet are at the beginning of their expected service life

Confused b/w A and B . Experts please suggest

IMO A,

A - since workers for model Z were outsiders there is no need to layoff.
B - manto's workers who develop model Z do not know how to develop model TX, so company will layoff them because company now need people who make model TX.

jainrahul1985 wrote:A shortage of orders for Manto Aircraft's airliners has led analysts to predict that the manufacturer will have to lay off workers, the new order that consolidated airlines has just made for 20 of Manto's model TX jets does not provide a reason for the analysts to revise their predictions, because simultaneously with its new order, consolidated canceled its existing order for an equal number of manto's larger, more expensive model Z jets.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Manto relies more heavily on outside subcontractors to provide the labor to manufacture the model Z than it does the model TX
B. The Manto employees who currently work to manufacture the model Z are not proficient at manufacturing the model TX
C. Manto includes all required maintenance work for the first five years in the price of each jet it sells
D. Manto has had to lay off workers several times within the past ten years but has typically rehired many of the workers when it subsequently received new orders
E. A large number of the airliners in consolidated fleet are at the beginning of their expected service life

Confused b/w A and B . Experts please suggest

Why do you think A is right, and why B? Can you clarify to yourself (and maybe to us) what you find appealing in each of these answer choices? I think there's a chance to draw a general guideline here that goes beyond this particular question.

May I know why "C" shouldnt be the answer..
A and C - Both are appealing to me

C. Manto includes all required maintenance work for the first five years in the price of each jet it sells

As C includes the maintainance to be done for the next five years, Manto shouldnt layoff workers..
This weakens the argument..Am I going correct in my approach?

abhishek karumuri wrote:May I know why "C" shouldnt be the answer..
As C includes the maintainance to be done for the next five years, Manto shouldnt layoff workers..
This weakens the argument..Am I going correct in my approach?

The reason for C to be incorrect is that it does not weaken the argument. In making the claim above you assumed that Manto has ORDER's for which maintainence is required. But what if there are NO ORDER's or NO CUSTOMERS for MANTO then this does not help.

Time: 2:15
IMO: A

The new TX orders need workforce within the company, so lay-off would be a bad decision, while Z was mostly on sub-contracts, so lay-off would have less impact.

jainrahul1985 wrote:A shortage of orders for Manto Aircraft's airliners has led analysts to predict that the manufacturer will have to lay off workers, the new order that consolidated airlines has just made for 20 of Manto's model TX jets does not provide a reason for the analysts to revise their predictions, because simultaneously with its new order, consolidated canceled its existing order for an equal number of manto's larger, more expensive model Z jets.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Manto relies more heavily on outside subcontractors to provide the labor to manufacture the model Z than it does the model TX
B. The Manto employees who currently work to manufacture the model Z are not proficient at manufacturing the model TX
C. Manto includes all required maintenance work for the first five years in the price of each jet it sells
D. Manto has had to lay off workers several times within the past ten years but has typically rehired many of the workers when it subsequently received new orders
E. A large number of the airliners in consolidated fleet are at the beginning of their expected service life

Confused b/w A and B . Experts please suggest

The argument's bottom line is that Manto is in trouble (a shortage of orders), and will need to lay off workers. There was a new order for 20 TX models (that would have averted the layoffs by generating revenues and work), but that order isn't a new order - it's a replacement of an existing order for 20 Z models, which are more expensive. So apparently Manto isn't generating new work after all, and will need to lay off people.

This argument actually sounds reasonable - if the new order doesn't provide new work, but actually just replaces work that was already ordered, then Manto requirements for workers have not increased - quite the contraty. How do we weaken this seemingly solid argument? We're looking for an answer choice that says that the new order, although for cheaper models, still generates more demand for workers - so workers will not be laid off, since they are needed. What we're doing here is attacking the assumption that all models require approximately the same amount of workers to assemble - which is the root cause of the reasoning why the new order will not generate new demands for workers.

If you have this reasoning in mind, A is the clear answer: It presents a crucial difference between the two models. Model Z, although more expensive, is less work-intensive, as a lot of it is outsourced. Model TX, the replacement, therefore requires more workers to make - so Manto will need to keep the workers it already has to meet the new order for the TX.

B actually strengthens the notion that Manto will lay off workers - all these Z employees cannot switch to TX, so what is Manto to do with them? Keep them on for maintenance? I guess the reasoning behind considering B is that Manto may need to hire new people for the TX, so its overall staff may remain at the same level or higher (let go Z, hire TX instead). But the argument didn't say "Manto's staff will reduce in number" - it said "Manto will have to lay off workers" - which it will have to do because of the Z cancellation.

C is irrelevant, as Manto was already in trouble in the first place before the order. The argument debates whether the new order for TX or Z airplanes will change this unfortunate situation, but the 5-year maintenance contract will be the same for TX and for Z, so it's a non-issue - it won't differentiate between the two orders. C simply does not challenge the argument even if C is true, Manto will need to lay off workers, (keeping only those needed to meet its 5 year maintenance work).