2010gmat wrote:@testluv would like to put up a doubt
you said
"Because Humphries is risky (objectively considered), he should NOT be selected."
isn't the conclusion: Because Humphries has strong preference for risk ,his presense wud effect the objectivity,therefore he should NOT be selected."
shudn't it be D??
Yep! You're absolutely correct, and I stand corrected!
In my rush to exemplify the method, I did not take the problem as seriously, and made an error on step 2.
The committee MUST be objective. That goal is more important than maximizing the profit of the venture. This is because of the word "must" whereas first sentence is just background. So the argument, summed up is actually:
"Because of H's strong preferences for risk and because the committee must be objective, H is not a good selection (for the committee)"
That is the argument summed up. Once we sum it up, it is easier to see the assumption: that H's heavy preference for risk will detract from the committee's objectivity, and ability to arrive at unbiased decision.
Choice D:
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.
If the preferences of the others are weak or unknown, we want Humphries because his strong but conflicting preferences (for risk) will make it more likely that the committee will arrive at an unbiased decision (which the committee MUST do).
Choice E:
The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.
This choice is seductive because it suggests that it is a good idea to select H as his selection may turn out to be more profitable than would be thought. But this fails to weaken the argument because, again, the committee must be objective, and this has nothing to do with that. If anything, this choice suggests that perhaps the committe shouldn't be so objective in the first place. But the last sentence of the passasge--that the committee must be objective--is stated evidence, and we always "give" the arguer her evidence--we don't argue with the given evidence. In weaken questions, choices that seem to contradict the evidence should be eliminated.
Great call-out gmat2010
PS: I don't want other members to get bad info, so allow me to delete my previous post in which I mistakenly said choice E was correct.
