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

Redeem

Reporter's Salary

Expert replies
by prepgmat09 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:04 am
In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North American paid its reporters an average salary paid by its principle competitors to their reporters. An executive of the newspaper argued that this practice was justified, since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters' salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.

Which one of the following, if true about the newspaper in 1992, most seriously undermines the justification offered by the executive?

(A) Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper's principle competitors.
(B) Most of the newspaper's reporters had worked there for more than ten years.
(C) The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s.
(D) The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper's competitors.
(E) The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.

OA after discussion. With your answer, please provide your reasoning.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by kvcpk » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:45 am
Only B looks close to me.

Conclusion is Shortfall in salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.

pay of senior employees is irrelevant in A.
Circulation of paper is ireelevant in C.
Union is OOS in D
Reading of newspaper doesnt affect conclusion. E out.

B undermines the conclusion by stating indirectly that the employees with higher expereince levels have very little to learn from trainings.

Hope this helps!!
Join the discussion

by selango » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:48 am
IMO B

If most of the reporters worked more than 10 years,they must be well experienced.So providing training for them is not suitable and won't benefit.This undermine the executive argument.
--Anand--
Join the discussion

by selango » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:49 am
What is the source of this question?This looks very weird.
--Anand--
Join the discussion

by outreach » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:56 am
arg says "since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments. "
choice B, states that if most reporters had worked there for more than ten years, then they are already very experienced, hence, the training won't be as valuable.

B
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Join the discussion

by prepgmat09 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:52 am
OA is B.
Join the discussion

by adi_800 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:27 pm
This is indeed weird...

How come working for 10 years wont require any training..
is this guaranteed....No..
I agree that B comes close but not wid certainty...
Join the discussion