BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Senior management

Expert replies
by maihuna » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:07 am
Senior management is assembling a committee to evaluate proposals for new product lines, which are necessary for the continued growth of the company. Although Humphries, one candidate for the committee, has extensive experience with the launch of new products, his past behavior shows that he strongly favors risky ventures, which offer the potential for spectacular growth but also have a higher chance of failure than do more conservative ventures. The committee must be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis to counter a conclusion based on the argument above that Humphries would not be an appropriate selection for the committee?

A person with a strong preference derived from past experience usually has encountered success from following that preference or failure from not following it.

The decisions made by a committee composed of one person with a strong preference and other people with weak preferences usually will be dominated by the opinions of the person possessing the strong preference.

Risky ventures are objectively preferable to conservative ventures if and only if the magnitude of the potential reward is great enough to offset the greater probability of failure.

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.

The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.
Charged up again to beat the beast :)
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by gmatmachoman » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:27 pm
maihuna, Wonderful CR

IMO E is logical...
Join the discussion

by pandeyvineet24 » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:03 pm
i picked E.
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:24 pm
Why not 'A'?
Join the discussion

by crackgmat007 » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:55 pm
I would go for D based on the words 'unbiased recommendation', which is the objective of forming the committee.
Join the discussion

by delhiboy1979 » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:09 am
Between C and E i will go for E.
Join the discussion

by NikolayZ » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:30 am
Let's revive this theme =)

I m confused between D and E ...
The question stem asks us to identify the reason that Humphries, a risky man, would be a good candidacy for a committee. (making unbiased decision will be easier)
A: does fine with indentifying good traits of a risky-man.
B: We do not know whether all other condidates will have strong or weak preferences.
C: We are not interested in the specifics of a products here.
D: Well, if there won't be conflicting interests, but only strong ones, the recommendation will be unbiased. Humphries is strong candidacy, but we don't know whether there will be any other strong ones in the committee. (ooops, i think i've just figured it out =) )
E: Objective evaluator - Humphries - will be able to consider product risky at proposing stage, thus making it successful. So, it would be essential to have such an objective man. huh ? I see nothing about "unbiased" though. ;(
Could someone correct me?
Join the discussion

by sadullaevd » Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:50 am
Stimulus:Hemphries is an expereinced and risky guy, therefore he needs to be evaluated objectively/thoroughly.

E) Risky production in the begining, eventually becomes the most successful in the long run.OA plz
Join the discussion

by November Rain » Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:14 am
I would say D

Whether a risky product will be successful or not seems to be beside the point.

What it matters is whether the committee will be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation with Humphries presence in the committee.

OA?
?
Join the discussion

by DarkKnight » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:30 pm
I would go with D as well. OA please.
Join the discussion

Re: Senior management

by KICKGMATASS123 » Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:28 pm
maihuna wrote:Senior management is assembling a committee to evaluate proposals for new product lines, which are necessary for the continued growth of the company. Although Humphries, one candidate for the committee, has extensive experience with the launch of new products, his past behavior shows that he strongly favors risky ventures, which offer the potential for spectacular growth but also have a higher chance of failure than do more conservative ventures. The committee must be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis to counter a conclusion based on the argument above that Humphries would not be an appropriate selection for the committee?

A person with a strong preference derived from past experience usually has encountered success from following that preference or failure from not following it.

The decisions made by a committee composed of one person with a strong preference and other people with weak preferences usually will be dominated by the opinions of the person possessing the strong preference.

Risky ventures are objectively preferable to conservative ventures if and only if the magnitude of the potential reward is great enough to offset the greater probability of failure.

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.

The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.
I go with D as well.. Unbiased recc is the key here
Join the discussion

by kiennguyen » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:18 am
OA plz
Join the discussion

Re: Senior management

by jimmiejaz » Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:51 am
KICKGMATASS123 wrote:
maihuna wrote:Senior management is assembling a committee to evaluate proposals for new product lines, which are necessary for the continued growth of the company. Although Humphries, one candidate for the committee, has extensive experience with the launch of new products, his past behavior shows that he strongly favors risky ventures, which offer the potential for spectacular growth but also have a higher chance of failure than do more conservative ventures. The committee must be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis to counter a conclusion based on the argument above that Humphries would not be an appropriate selection for the committee?

A person with a strong preference derived from past experience usually has encountered success from following that preference or failure from not following it.

The decisions made by a committee composed of one person with a strong preference and other people with weak preferences usually will be dominated by the opinions of the person possessing the strong preference.

Risky ventures are objectively preferable to conservative ventures if and only if the magnitude of the potential reward is great enough to offset the greater probability of failure.

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.

The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.
I go with D as well.. Unbiased recc is the key here

Please see the words in BOLD. those are both negation words. Two negatives cancel each other out. In other words, it is merely asking as

"Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis that Humphries would be an appropriate selection for the committee?"

Now the answer choices:
A - tells about the person with strong prefs. It is correct
B - talks about the committee which is not the issue in hand.
C - weakens the argument
D - talks abt recommendation - out of scope.
E - talks about products - out of scope

So in my opinion the ans is A.
What if i have not yet beat the beast, I know i will beat it!!!!!!!!
Join the discussion

Re: Senior management

by umbdude » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:44 am
maihuna wrote:Senior management is assembling a committee to evaluate proposals for new product lines, which are necessary for the continued growth of the company. Although Humphries, one candidate for the committee, has extensive experience with the launch of new products, his past behavior shows that he strongly favors risky ventures, which offer the potential for spectacular growth but also have a higher chance of failure than do more conservative ventures. The committee must be able to objectively consider the merits of each proposal and provide an unbiased recommendation.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis to counter a conclusion based on the argument above that Humphries would not be an appropriate selection for the committee?

A person with a strong preference derived from past experience usually has encountered success from following that preference or failure from not following it.

The decisions made by a committee composed of one person with a strong preference and other people with weak preferences usually will be dominated by the opinions of the person possessing the strong preference.

Risky ventures are objectively preferable to conservative ventures if and only if the magnitude of the potential reward is great enough to offset the greater probability of failure.

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.

The most successful products are generally those that were considered risky by objective evaluators at the time they were initially proposed.
Summary: Senior mgmt is putting together a committee and this committee must provide objective/unbiased recommendations. Because Humphries has strong preference for risky ventures, management concluded that he will be biased towards such ventures; hence, he is not a good fit for the committee.

Question: Counter the conclusion that Humphries is a bad candidate for the committee.

Answer: The answer should be D.

A way to counter this conclusion is to show that having a strong preference would actually contribute to the objectivity of the committee. Choice D asserts that putting together people with strong, yet conflicting, preferences actually adds to the objectivity of the end proposal. So putting Humphries in the committee would be a good move.
Join the discussion

by 2010gmat » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:24 pm
d for me
Join the discussion