Tough CR from Knewton

[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.

Mixed with B and E.

will go for B

I go with E . Whats the OA ?

between C and D

Is it E?

sunnyjohn wrote:[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.

OA is D

Sunny- Please provide explanation to eliminate each incorrect option.

We are looking for a choice that would discourage the firm from pursuing its expansion plan

A - This does not tell us whether it was because they were flooded with clients or was it because of the complexity of patents itself that consumed the attorney's time
B - Does not support the contention that it would be unwise for them to go ahead with their plan. On the contrary it would encourage them to carry out their plan
C - Would suggest that there is something wrong with their marketing plan, nevertheless as long as the inventors are coming to them to get their patents filed that would bring the firm business
E- The lost market share could be due to other reasons, and it is not a reason to not go ahead with the expansion plan

D - Shows that despite lowering their fees, they didn't attract enough clients, as suggested by the fewer number of hours worked. So, if they went ahead with their expansion plan, it could prove futile

need720+ wrote:

sunnyjohn wrote:[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.

OA is D

Sunny- Please provide explanation to eliminate each incorrect option.

Here you go-

Revenues earned by patent attorneys have increased dramatically during the last two years. To take advantage of this trend, the law firm of Smith & Adams plans to increase the size of its patent law department, while continuing its established program of marketing to inventors seeking patents.

F1: Total $ earned by patent attorneys have increased in last 2 years.

PLAN: 1) Smith and Adams will hire more employee.
2) Smith and Adams will continue its advertisement program to people seeking patents.
Expected Result: This will help firm to earn more.

Argument style - Cause and Effect.
Hiring more employee, and marketing --> Earn More.

A very important assumption here is - Current level of employee can not help firm to earn more.

Our purpose: Weaken the expansion plan.

(A)Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked a greater number of hours last year than they did two years ago.
This Option is just comparing the number of hours they worked at 2 points of time. This fact doesn't help to weaken. In fact this fact strengthen the argument by supporting the assumption.

(B)The revenue collected by Smith & Adams' patent law department increased by a greater proportion than the industry average over the last two years.

This point also helps to strengthen the argument by saying that firm share in market is increasing, so may be they should hire more to get more share in market. A low level strengthening.

(C)Most inventors who hire Smith & Adams' patent attorneys do so without knowing that these attorneys work at Smith & Adams.

This fact is irrelevant to plan we want to attack, however it does weaken the point whether firm discontinue the marketing program. This option is trap because it attacks something else than main point.

(D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.
This says that even though firm decreased its service rate, still employee did not have full time work. It attacked our assumption and says that current employee can help to increase revenue, firm doesn't need to hire more.

(E)Despite the increasing fees collected by its patent attorneys, Smith & Adams' share of the entire patent law market declined over the past two years
This strengthen the fact that firm should continue its marketing program as its total market share is decreasing.

sunnyjohn wrote:

need720+ wrote:

sunnyjohn wrote:[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.

OA is D

Sunny- Please provide explanation to eliminate each incorrect option.

Here you go-

Revenues earned by patent attorneys have increased dramatically during the last two years. To take advantage of this trend, the law firm of Smith & Adams plans to increase the size of its patent law department, while continuing its established program of marketing to inventors seeking patents.

F1: Total $ earned by patent attorneys have increased in last 2 years.

PLAN: 1) Smith and Adams will hire more employee.
2) Smith and Adams will continue its advertisement program to people seeking patents.
Expected Result: This will help firm to earn more.

Argument style - Cause and Effect.
Hiring more employee, and marketing --> Earn More.

A very important assumption here is - Current level of employee can not help firm to earn more.

Our purpose: Weaken the expansion plan.

(A)Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked a greater number of hours last year than they did two years ago.
This Option is just comparing the number of hours they worked at 2 points of time. This fact doesn't help to weaken. In fact this fact strengthen the argument by supporting the assumption.

(B)The revenue collected by Smith & Adams' patent law department increased by a greater proportion than the industry average over the last two years.

This point also helps to strengthen the argument by saying that firm share in market is increasing, so may be they should hire more to get more share in market. A low level strengthening.

(C)Most inventors who hire Smith & Adams' patent attorneys do so without knowing that these attorneys work at Smith & Adams.

This fact is irrelevant to plan we want to attack, however it does weaken the point whether firm discontinue the marketing program. This option is trap because it attacks something else than main point.

(D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.
This says that even though firm decreased its service rate, still employee did not have full time work. It attacked our assumption and says that current employee can help to increase revenue, firm doesn't need to hire more.

(E)Despite the increasing fees collected by its patent attorneys, Smith & Adams' share of the entire patent law market declined over the past two years
This strengthen the fact that firm should continue its marketing program as its total market share is decreasing.

I completely agree with sunnyjohn and want to add one more thing.

D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.--> D clearly shows that the plan will not work; because even if the firm lowers its fee rates, the revenue generated is still low. They can not attract new people with low rates, so expanding the depoartment will not work either.

Very good question

Good question. This question is similar to the OG question -- Telephone companies revenues have increased and company X tried to improve.."; I don't remember question number though.

Argument:

Revenues of patent attornies increasing for the last two years ===(1)===> Adams & Smith plan to hires attornies to raise revenues;

Argument gap: why should it help increase the revenues? because Adams & smith current employees can't take more work than currently they are.

Weaken: Current employees don't have enough work.

sunnyjohn wrote:

need720+ wrote:

sunnyjohn wrote:[spoiler]IMO: D[/spoiler]

If I am correct, I will provide my reasoning.

OA is D

Sunny- Please provide explanation to eliminate each incorrect option.

Here you go-

Revenues earned by patent attorneys have increased dramatically during the last two years. To take advantage of this trend, the law firm of Smith & Adams plans to increase the size of its patent law department, while continuing its established program of marketing to inventors seeking patents.

F1: Total $ earned by patent attorneys have increased in last 2 years.

PLAN: 1) Smith and Adams will hire more employee.
2) Smith and Adams will continue its advertisement program to people seeking patents.
Expected Result: This will help firm to earn more.

Argument style - Cause and Effect.
Hiring more employee, and marketing --> Earn More.

A very important assumption here is - Current level of employee can not help firm to earn more.

Our purpose: Weaken the expansion plan.

(A)Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked a greater number of hours last year than they did two years ago.
This Option is just comparing the number of hours they worked at 2 points of time. This fact doesn't help to weaken. In fact this fact strengthen the argument by supporting the assumption.

(B)The revenue collected by Smith & Adams' patent law department increased by a greater proportion than the industry average over the last two years.

This point also helps to strengthen the argument by saying that firm share in market is increasing, so may be they should hire more to get more share in market. A low level strengthening.

(C)Most inventors who hire Smith & Adams' patent attorneys do so without knowing that these attorneys work at Smith & Adams.

This fact is irrelevant to plan we want to attack, however it does weaken the point whether firm discontinue the marketing program. This option is trap because it attacks something else than main point.

(D)Despite decreasing their fee rates, Smith & Adams' patent attorneys worked fewer hours and earned less revenue over the last two years than in previous years.
This says that even though firm decreased its service rate, still employee did not have full time work. It attacked our assumption and says that current employee can help to increase revenue, firm doesn't need to hire more.

(E)Despite the increasing fees collected by its patent attorneys, Smith & Adams' share of the entire patent law market declined over the past two years
This strengthen the fact that firm should continue its marketing program as its total market share is decreasing.

Nice explanation. Thanks.