Consultant: Your total revenue would increase considerably if you

Executive's response: Companies that have not enrolled their employees in seminars are having better revenues. Enrollment in seminars result in lower revenues.

Possible Weakener: If the companies that did not enroll their employees in seminars already had higher revenues, then lower revenues in other companies (that enrolled for seminars) cannot be attributed to seminars. The companies that enrolled for the seminars already had lower revenues that the companies that did not enroll.

B aligns to our assumed weakener.

Option A says that 95% of companies reported "increase" in revenue. Consultant argued that there will be "considerable increase" in company's revenue if the employees will attend his seminar. So, A does not weaken the argument as much B is doing.

Conclusion Consultant: Program -> Revnue+
Conclusion SCE: Program -> Does not work (since it's a waist of money)
Premise SCE: revenue for employees who took the seminar is lower than for those who did not took it.

Assumption: seminar is correlated with low profits; (A causality might be implied that seminar -> low profits).

Strategy:
- We need something to weaken the correlation (x response to the same value of y might be different).
- If we thinners' of the causality, showing the following might help ( assume Program =x, Low profits = y):
1. y ->X
2. Z (other factor) ->X
3. Y happens without X / X happens without Y before it


Elimination Process:
A. 95% of the companies that enroll in the consultant’s seminar report that their revenues have increased.
- 95% of the companies might not even be in the software industry. So this answer might weaken, but this not a must.
- Lets keep it in the meanwhile.
B. Most of the software companies that had high revenues prior to 2005 did not enroll in the consultant’s seminar.
- understanding the implied implications is tricky.
- So we can take 2 extreme cases to understand the meaning in the context of the given stimulus.
- case 1: assume that most of the cases prior to 2005, that were small to begin with, enrolled into the consultant's seminar.
- This might mean that the reason for the big difference is not the seminar but the size of the company. (meaning we found a z->x).
- Case 2: assume the most companioned were big companies, this means that the companies start with a lot of revenue and then the consultants seminar might have indeed lower the companies' revenues.
C. Overall sales of software since 2005 have increased dramatically.
- Overall sales might come from a group of companies in the relevant software industry that might not be relevant to the mentioned comparison.
D. The cost of developing and producing software has decreased since 2005.
- not relevant to the assumptions.
E. The majority of software companies that sent employees to the consultant’s seminar have experienced a drop in revenue since 2005.
- This strengthens the consultants argument.

No doubt with the OA...

The Executive reasons that the programmes of the company are a waste of money and reasons that companies who have enrolled have resulted in decrease in revenues after attending the programme..

(A) Strengthens the claims of the software consultant.
(C) Revenue = Quantity Sold x Price per unit...
An increase in Sales of has been stated here , however we are talking about revenue increase/decrease...
(D) Out of scope and irrelevant
(E) This option strengthens the views of the Executive...

(B) If only companies to send employees to the training were those who were having problem with decreased revenues , the it weakens the reasoning of the executive....

Hence answer will be (B)

really well made question.

A can be a weakner

But B is the most suitable.

Consultant: Enrol with me. Your revenue will increase.
Executive: Your program is bad. Since 2005, the software companies enrolled with you have lower revenues.

We have to weaken the executive's logic.

(A) 95% of the companies that enrol in the consultant’s seminar report that their revenues have increased.

This data talks about the companies that enrol in the seminar. We don't know how many are software companies out of those, if at all. Our argument talks about software companies only. This data about all companies is irrelevant to us.
The option has to weaken the conclusion. We should not need an assumption to cast a doubt on the argument. We should not need to assume that some of these 95% companies were software companies. The data, as given to us, is irrelevant.

(B) Most of the software companies that had high revenues prior to 2005 did not enrol in the consultant’s seminar.

The executive says that the software companies enrolled with you have lower revenues than others. This option tells us that the software companies with high revenues did not enrol in the program in the first place. So a company that was already doing well did not enrol. This explains why the software companies enrolled with the consultant could have lower revenues without actually implying that the program is bad. It is because those companies come for help which need help. So it reduces the force of the argument and hence weakens it.

(C) Overall sales of software since 2005 have increased dramatically.

Figures about the overall software industry (without distinguishing between those that enrolled and those that did not) are irrelevant.

(D) The cost of developing and producing software has decreased since 2005.

Figures about the overall software industry (without distinguishing between those that enrolled and those that did not) are irrelevant.

(E) The majority of software companies that sent employees to the consultant’s seminar have experienced a drop in revenue since 2005.

This does not weaken the executive's claim. In fact, it looks like the executive was right - the program may actually be bad.

Answer (B)

I agree with your explanation. However, I was not able to decide between the 2 options primarily for the two reasons:

Option A: the choice says 95% of the companies increased their revenues. It has been correctly pointed out in the argument that this 95% does not have to include the software companies - Hence, this is not a good weakener

Option B: Most of the software companies that had high revenues prior to 2005 did not enroll in the consultant’s seminar.
In this case, even if most companies did not enroll, how can we be sure that the revenues of other companies increased?
It might be the case, that the mid tier software companies enrolled in this program and their revenue did actually decrease

In such a case, how do we reject option B?

VeritasKarishma I think its a great question. Option B says most companies with highest revenues prior to 2005. The phrase prior to 2005 was a deal breaker for me. Isnt the argument tied to companies and their revenues post 2005? Or can we make this leap that the same group prior to 2005 did not go bankrupt all of the sudden

DanTe02

Software company's executive gives you data on revenue of companies which have enrolled since 2005. That their revenues have been lower compared to those who have not enrolled. (implying that your program has done no good, but has done harm perhaps.. whoever enrols, gets low revenues)

Option (B) gives you data about revenues before 2005. That those who had high revenues did not enrol. The ones who had low revenues are the ones who enrolled. This tells us that to start out, these companies who enrolled had low revenues. That may have been the reason they enrolled.


It's like saying remedial classes are useless. All students who attended them got low scores. Now the point is who attended these classes? The ones who had very low scores to begin with.
So the point is not to compare these students' scores with the scores of others who did not take classes (which is what the software company executive is doing). The point is to compare their previous scores with their own scores after taking classes.
Option (B) points out that the students who took remedial classes had low scores to begin with.


There is no reason to believe that the player composition of the industry saw a major shift in 2005. 2005 is just the point when enrolments in the program began (as far as we are concerned).

Option [A] talks neither about the industry nor about the period under consideration and so, is a weaker weakener compared to option [B].

Well made question.

A) This is a trap. While it may seem like a good counter-response, it does not address any of the issues highlighted by the exec. So what if 95% of the companies enrolled in the course have had revenues increase? Those companies could have been from an industry that is not the execs industry, and the point of the exec still stands, that the program is not suitable for his industry. Out.

B) This is a good choice. If this is the case, then the reason why the revenues of the companies that went to the program are lower than average is not because the program does not work, but rather because the firms that enroll are those that are already performing poorly. This changes what the executive implies, since it no longer seems like the consultants program makes those companies under perform, but rather they were already under-performing companies.

C) If anything, this strengthens the execs argument. If overall sales went up, why do those companies still have lower revenues than the rest?

D) This is not relevant to the discussion at hand. While this may impact profits, the executive is discussing revenues. Out.

E) This is in clear support of the executive. Out.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.