OG 2018 CR Q With employer-paid training

[lionsshare]

With employer-paid training, workers have the potential to become more productive not only in their present employment but also in any number of jobs with different employers. To increase the productivity of their workforce, many firms are planning to maintain or even increase their investments in worker training. But some training experts object that if a trained worker is hired away by another firm, the employer that paid for the training has merely subsidized a competitor. They note that such hiring has been on the rise in recent years.

Which of the following would, if true, contribute most to defeating the training experts' objection to the firms' strategy?

A. Firms that promise opportunities for advancement to their employees get, on average, somewhat larger numbers of job applications from untrained workers than do firms that make no such promise.
B. In many industries, employees who take continuing-education courses are more competitive in the job market.
C. More and more educational and training institutions are offering reduced tuition fees to firms that subsidize worker training.
D. Research shows that workers whose training is wholly or partially subsidized by their employer tend to get at least as much training as do workers who pay for all their own training.
E. For most firms that invest in training their employees, the value added by that investment in employees who stay exceeds the value lost through other employees' leaving to work for other companies

OA: E

Anyone here can help explain why D is not the answer?

[DavidG@VeritasPrep]

With employer-paid training, workers have the potential to become more productive not only in their present employment but also in any number of jobs with different employers. To increase the productivity of their workforce, many firms are planning to maintain or even increase their investments in worker training. But some training experts object that if a trained worker is hired away by another firm, the employer that paid for the training has merely subsidized a competitor. They note that such hiring has been on the rise in recent years.

Which of the following would, if true, contribute most to defeating the training experts' objection to the firms' strategy?

A. Firms that promise opportunities for advancement to their employees get, on average, somewhat larger numbers of job applications from untrained workers than do firms that make no such promise.
B. In many industries, employees who take continuing-education courses are more competitive in the job market.
C. More and more educational and training institutions are offering reduced tuition fees to firms that subsidize worker training.
D. Research shows that workers whose training is wholly or partially subsidized by their employer tend to get at least as much training as do workers who pay for all their own training.
E. For most firms that invest in training their employees, the value added by that investment in employees who stay exceeds the value lost through other employees' leaving to work for other companies

OA: E

Anyone here can help explain why D is not the answer?

When it comes to the merits of employee training, a company is weighing the benefits (more productive workers) against the costs (the expense of the training + the risk of losing those employees to competitors.) D tells us nothing about relative magnitude of cost and expense, as it doesn't address the issue of employees leaving the company once they've been trained. E, on the other hand, tells us very specifically that the benefit of better-trained employees outweighs the cost of losing trainees.

[Brent@GMATPrepNow]

With employer-paid training, workers have the potential to become more productive not only in their present employment but also in any number of jobs with different employers. To increase the productivity of their workforce, many firms are planning to maintain or even increase their investments in worker training. But some training experts object that if a trained worker is hired away by another firm, the employer that paid for the training has merely subsidized a competitor. They note that such hiring has been on the rise in recent years.

Which of the following would, if true, contribute most to defeating the training experts' objection to the firms' strategy?

A. Firms that promise opportunities for advancement to their employees get, on average, somewhat larger numbers of job applications from untrained workers than do firms that make no such promise.
B. In many industries, employees who take continuing-education courses are more competitive in the job market.
C. More and more educational and training institutions are offering reduced tuition fees to firms that subsidize worker training.
D. Research shows that workers whose training is wholly or partially subsidized by their employer tend to get at least as much training as do workers who pay for all their own training.
E. For most firms that invest in training their employees, the value added by that investment in employees who stay exceeds the value lost through other employees' leaving to work for other companies

OA: E

Anyone here can help explain why D is not the answer?

PREMISE: Employer-paid training helps with present job and future jobs (with competing companies)
PREMISE: Many firms planning to invest in worker training
CONCLUSION (by some experts): Employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money (if the worker is hired by a competing company)

Our goal here is to find a premise that weakens the experts' conclusion

Let's check the answer choices While also reminding ourselves what the conclusion is...

A) This does not weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer
B) This does not weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer
C) This does not weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer
D) This does not weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer. It has nothing to do with the company's return on investment.
E) This DOES weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer. This premise basically says, "Sure some employees might leave but the ones who stay more than make up for the ones who leave."

Answer: E