Reporter's Salary

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:06 am
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:770

Reporter's Salary

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.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

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!!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

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--

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

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

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

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/

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:06 am
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:770

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

Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Pune, India
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

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...