Critical Reasoning

Senior management is assembling a committee to evaluate proposals for new product lines, which are necessary for the continued growth of the company. Although Humphries, one candidate for the committee, has extensive experience with the launch of new products, his past behavior shows that he strongly favors risky ventures, which offer the potential for spectacular growth but also have a higher chance of failure than do more conservative ventures. The committee must be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis to counter a conclusion based on the argument above that Humphries would not be an appropriate selection for the committee?

A person with a strong preference derived from past experience usually has encountered success from following that preference or failure from not following it.

The decisions made by a committee composed of one person with a strong preference and other people with weak preferences usually will be dominated by the opinions of the person possessing the strong preference.

Risky ventures are objectively preferable to conservative ventures if and only if the magnitude of the potential reward is great enough to offset the greater probability of failure.

A committee composed of experienced people with strong but conflicting preferences is more likely to make an unbiased recommendation than is a committee composed of people with unknown or weak preferences.

The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.

maihuna, Wonderful CR

IMO E is logical...

i picked E.

Why not 'A'?

I would go for D based on the words 'unbiased recommendation', which is the objective of forming the committee.

Between C and E i will go for E.

Let's revive this theme =)

I m confused between D and E ...
The question stem asks us to identify the reason that Humphries, a risky man, would be a good candidacy for a committee. (making unbiased decision will be easier)
A: does fine with indentifying good traits of a risky-man.
B: We do not know whether all other condidates will have strong or weak preferences.
C: We are not interested in the specifics of a products here.
D: Well, if there won't be conflicting interests, but only strong ones, the recommendation will be unbiased. Humphries is strong candidacy, but we don't know whether there will be any other strong ones in the committee. (ooops, i think i've just figured it out =) )
E: Objective evaluator - Humphries - will be able to consider product risky at proposing stage, thus making it successful. So, it would be essential to have such an objective man. huh ? I see nothing about "unbiased" though. ;(
Could someone correct me?

Stimulus:Hemphries is an expereinced and risky guy, therefore he needs to be evaluated objectively/thoroughly.

E) Risky production in the begining, eventually becomes the most successful in the long run.OA plz

I would say D

Whether a risky product will be successful or not seems to be beside the point.

What it matters is whether the committee will be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation with Humphries presence in the committee.

OA?
?

I would go with D as well. OA please.

maihuna wrote:Senior management is assembling a committee to evaluate proposals for new product lines, which are necessary for the continued growth of the company. Although Humphries, one candidate for the committee, has extensive experience with the launch of new products, his past behavior shows that he strongly favors risky ventures, which offer the potential for spectacular growth but also have a higher chance of failure than do more conservative ventures. The committee must be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis to counter a conclusion based on the argument above that Humphries would not be an appropriate selection for the committee?

A person with a strong preference derived from past experience usually has encountered success from following that preference or failure from not following it.

The decisions made by a committee composed of one person with a strong preference and other people with weak preferences usually will be dominated by the opinions of the person possessing the strong preference.

Risky ventures are objectively preferable to conservative ventures if and only if the magnitude of the potential reward is great enough to offset the greater probability of failure.

A committee composed of experienced people with strong but conflicting preferences is more likely to make an unbiased recommendation than is a committee composed of people with unknown or weak preferences.

The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.

I go with D as well.. Unbiased recc is the key here

OA plz

KICKGMATASS123 wrote:

maihuna wrote:Senior management is assembling a committee to evaluate proposals for new product lines, which are necessary for the continued growth of the company. Although Humphries, one candidate for the committee, has extensive experience with the launch of new products, his past behavior shows that he strongly favors risky ventures, which offer the potential for spectacular growth but also have a higher chance of failure than do more conservative ventures. The committee must be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis to counter a conclusion based on the argument above that Humphries would not be an appropriate selection for the committee?

A person with a strong preference derived from past experience usually has encountered success from following that preference or failure from not following it.

The decisions made by a committee composed of one person with a strong preference and other people with weak preferences usually will be dominated by the opinions of the person possessing the strong preference.

Risky ventures are objectively preferable to conservative ventures if and only if the magnitude of the potential reward is great enough to offset the greater probability of failure.

A committee composed of experienced people with strong but conflicting preferences is more likely to make an unbiased recommendation than is a committee composed of people with unknown or weak preferences.

The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.

I go with D as well.. Unbiased recc is the key here

Please see the words in BOLD. those are both negation words. Two negatives cancel each other out. In other words, it is merely asking as

"Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis that Humphries would be an appropriate selection for the committee?"

Now the answer choices:
A - tells about the person with strong prefs. It is correct
B - talks about the committee which is not the issue in hand.
C - weakens the argument
D - talks abt recommendation - out of scope.
E - talks about products - out of scope

So in my opinion the ans is A.

maihuna wrote:Senior management is assembling a committee to evaluate proposals for new product lines, which are necessary for the continued growth of the company. Although Humphries, one candidate for the committee, has extensive experience with the launch of new products, his past behavior shows that he strongly favors risky ventures, which offer the potential for spectacular growth but also have a higher chance of failure than do more conservative ventures. The committee must be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis to counter a conclusion based on the argument above that Humphries would not be an appropriate selection for the committee?

A person with a strong preference derived from past experience usually has encountered success from following that preference or failure from not following it.

The decisions made by a committee composed of one person with a strong preference and other people with weak preferences usually will be dominated by the opinions of the person possessing the strong preference.

Risky ventures are objectively preferable to conservative ventures if and only if the magnitude of the potential reward is great enough to offset the greater probability of failure.

A committee composed of experienced people with strong but conflicting preferences is more likely to make an unbiased recommendation than is a committee composed of people with unknown or weak preferences.

The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.

Summary: Senior mgmt is putting together a committee and this committee must provide objective/unbiased recommendations. Because Humphries has strong preference for risky ventures, management concluded that he will be biased towards such ventures; hence, he is not a good fit for the committee.

Question: Counter the conclusion that Humphries is a bad candidate for the committee.

Answer: The answer should be D.

A way to counter this conclusion is to show that having a strong preference would actually contribute to the objectivity of the committee. Choice D asserts that putting together people with strong, yet conflicting, preferences actually adds to the objectivity of the end proposal. So putting Humphries in the committee would be a good move.

d for me