Critical Reasoning

GM: The code-quality assurance team has reported fewer numbers of errors per hundred lines of code for code delivered by project FIRE's team (so far) this year compared to any other year. Definitely the improvement initiatives taken by our company late last year have started to pay off.

CEO: the reuse code policy adopted by team is more likely the reason of the reduction in the number of errors.

Which of the following most strongly weaken CEO's argument:

1)Many projects in the group have recently started adopting the reuse code policy and are yet to report the benefits
2)Project FIRE team members provide no guarantee that the number of errors per lines of codes will decrease further
3)Another project team that did not do any reuse of codes, reported fewer errors than usual
4)The average number of effors per lines of code delivered has been reducing for past 2 years
5)The GM has not taken into account the data provided by other groups in the company

Pls explain your pick.

what is the source of this question?
you require to pick an answer and explain, may I ask you how to interpret the word *team* in CEO's argument,as it has two potential antecedents. Of course, I know that it refers to FIRE's team as reviewing side cannot assure what it adopts, but this is something different not stated in the argument. This is very bad question!

pemdas wrote:what is the source of this question?
you require to pick an answer and explain, may I ask you how to interpret the word *team* in CEO's argument,as it has two potential antecedents. Of course, I know that it refers to FIRE's team as reviewing side cannot assure what it adopts, but this is something different not stated in the argument. This is very bad question!

Team does refer to TEAM FIRE.

Lets keep the flaws aside for the time being and explore things that we can learn together.

patanjali.purpose wrote:

pemdas wrote:what is the source of this question?
you require to pick an answer and explain, may I ask you how to interpret the word *team* in CEO's argument,as it has two potential antecedents. Of course, I know that it refers to FIRE's team as reviewing side cannot assure what it adopts, but this is something different not stated in the argument. This is very bad question!

Team does refer to TEAM FIRE.

Lets keep the flaws aside for the time being and explore things that we can learn together.

hm, i thought logical predication leaves no room for not literal meaning
i pass :arrow:

IMO C, it weakens the CE0's argument. CEO aruges that code reuse is the cause that errors are reducing.

But a team which didn't reuse the code has less errors than usual which clearly weakens.

karthikgmat wrote:IMO C, it weakens the CE0's argument. CEO aruges that code reuse is the cause that errors are reducing.

But a team which didn't reuse the code has less errors than usual which clearly weakens.

[spoiler]OA - C; [/spoiler]

Thanks. Could you pls share your reasoning for eliminating A.

I saw this question and just thought I'd chime in .

I think there is a very good reason why many balk at questions from questionable OAs. Grammar issues aside - of which there are quite a few - the wording can be misleading and give rise to multiple answer choices. And then there are the answer choices: GMAC, and for that matter Manhattan GMAT et al., work to create wrong answer choices that follow a certain logic (or illogic, if you will). That is wrong answers fall into certain "buckets" and learning to spot these errors is essential to success.

By practicing with material that doesn't adhere to these standards, you can undo much of what you learn from using OG and Manhattan GMAT.

With questionable sources you practice at your own peril.

I hope my words are taken seriously .