Critical Reasoning

Division manager: I want to replace the Microton computers in my division with Vitech computers.

General manager: Why?

Division manager: It costs 28 percent less to train new staff on the Vitech.

General manager: But that is not a good enough reason. We can simply hire only people who already know how to use the Microton computer.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the general manager's objection to the replacement of Microton computers with Vitechs?

(A) Currently all employees in the company are required to attend workshops on how to use Microton computers in new applications.
(B) Once employees learn how to use a computer, they tend to change employers more readily than before.
(C) Experienced users of Microton computers command much higher salaries than do prospective
employees who have no experience in the use of computers.
(D) The average productivity of employees in the general manager's company is below the average productivity of the employees of its competitors.
(E) The high costs of replacement parts make Vitech computers more expensive to maintain than Microton computers.

[spoiler]OA: C[/spoiler]

Why NOT A?

Thanks.

Conclusion ( General Manager) : Hire people having experience in Microton Computers
Plausible Assumption : The cost of hiring an experienced Microton employee is less than the training cost of Vitech ( and way less than -28%- Microton) computers

(A) At best, this choice is strengthening the conclusion. If all employees are required to attend the Microton training for the new applications, it makes more sense to hire experienced employees since the assumption is that the cost of hiring is less. This choice could be a weaking one if it is phrased as " if all employees will get training on Microton for the new applications, the company will get 90% discount, which includes basic training on the Microton"

C is the best choice.

Hi,

Is it not because A is out of scope? reason being the conclusion is getting new hires Vitech trained, but choice A is about training existing employees.

Thanks,
Sandeep

A is considered out of scope, and it is important on test day to be able to eliminate A as out of scope answer quickly.

The reason why A is out of scope is that the discussion between the managers involved "cost", and A does not directly address the issue of cost. There is no information associating the cost of workshop to overall cost, and more importantly, the information on workshop has no connection to the general manager's objection.

Although I got my answer correct, but I pre-assumed something different than given in the answer choice. Please check whether this my pre-assumption is also correct:

The works done by their company are compatible with Vitech Computers.

Thanks and Regards
Tushar

Just to add to the discussion, if you know some of the most common logical fallacies, it's easier to spot some of ways a flawed argument can be weakened. Here are some common logical fallacies you may want to keep a look out for:

"¢ Necessary/Sufficient - Sometimes an argument will assume that something necessary to a conclusion is sufficient to cause that conclusion. To weaken, show there's another necessary component to the conclusion.

"¢ Generalization - This happens when an author draws a conclusion about a population based on only a small sample of the population.

"¢ False Dichotomy - A false dichotomy occurs when an argument assumes that just because one explanation is impossible, another explanation MUST be true. To weaken, we can show that a third explanation exists.

"¢ Numbers/Percentages - A common logical flaw conflates real-world numbers with percentages. An argument like this can usually be weakened by showing that the real-world numbers have changed over time (so that the percentages do not apply), or show that the conclusion drawn based on percentages do not hold up once the real-world numbers are known.

"¢ Correlation/Causation - This is one of the most common GMAT argument flaws (we'll cover this is much more detail in Chapter 8). Here, an author believes that just because two things are connected (correlated), they have a causal relationship. To weaken, we can show that the correlation is mere coincidence, show that the causal relationship actually happens in reverse (X causes Y instead of Y causing X), or show that there is an outside cause for both things.

Because of the phrase "most seriously undermines," we're obviously weakening this objection, so it's worthwhile to run through this list and see if this objection falls into any of these categories. And it does!

The division manager's argument is that it costs 28% less to train new staff on V. We know NOTHING about the real-world numbers in this scenario. So, a realistic criticism should focus on that. However, the GM focuses on WHO we hire.

Prediction: What if it didn't matter WHO we hired? Then the GM's argument would fall apart!

C utterly refutes the GM's logic. We can't just hire different people, because they will still cost the company $$$$.

Notice how A doesn't directly deal with the GM's proposal. Choice A focuses on the current situation, while C is discussing a future action.