Because boldface questions deal with the structure of the argument, it's often helpful to figure out how those boldface pieces fit within the structure we know will exist (are they premises or the conclusion? if they are premises, do they support or go against the conclusion?)
The conclusion here is that Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program if the attrition problem continues. The first boldface statement merely states the existence of that sponsorship program. Therefore A, which says the argument tries to “justify” the program, is out—you never even have to read the second half of that choice. Continuing a vertical scan down—just examining the first halves of the choices, we can also eliminate B—the conclusion is not an attempt to explain the program, but a recommendation about what to DO about it. The first half of choice E is also incorrect—the first boldfaced portion is not a consideration SUPPORTING the policy the argument is evaluating, the boldfaced portion *is* that policy.
That leaves C and D, which have identical first halves. On to the second halves! The only difference between the language of C and D is the very last part—“the practice cannot achieve it’s objective” (C) versus “the policy is not needed”(D).
The second boldface states that the goals Hachnut is trying to achieve with the program could be achieved through other means—it is in SUPPORT of the conclusion that the company should discontinue the program. This aligns with choice D (“grounds for holding that the policy is not needed”). While at first glance C may look similar to D , the stimulus never states that the program *can’t* achieve its goals—in fact, the second boldface portion says the opposite: those goals COULD be achieved through other means. D is our answer.
JP Park | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Los Angeles
Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews