Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive title

1st boldface: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles

2nd boldface: use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses


Explanation:
--------------------
A.) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy. ---> Correct. We'll see later why it should be correct.

B.) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal. ---> First part of this statement sounds right; the second part is not correct because it ONLY highlights the importance of using titles externally. The consultant is not doubtful about achieving the goal by shunning the use of titles internally. This is evident from the last part i.e., ...this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication...

He only says that the strategy can be disadvantageous w.r.t. external businesses' dealing.

C.) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem. ---> Explanation for the first part is OK. In the second part, the consultant is nowhere questioning the 'significance' of that problem; he's only trying to bring to light an area (external businesses' dealing), which might get affected by adopting this strategy.

He is not totally against shunning the use of title. Had that been the case, he wouldn't have mentioned '...corporations should adopt the compromise of...'. Since he mentions compromise, he is, to some extent, in favor of the first one too.

D.) The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon. ---> Rubbish; the second part is NO phenomena , and the first is, in no way, a part of an explanation of that phenomena.

E.) The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification; the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that ---> IMO, the consultant doesn't seek to provide a justification; he simply puts down what corporations believe.

Moreover, we can also consider how policy is different from strategy.

A policy is a set of guidelines to the members of the organisation. Policy provides and explains what a member should do rather than what he is doing. Policies' enforcement permits prediction of roles with certainty. A policy is what is, or what is not done - it thus implies a rule or some kind of a guide whereas a strategy is the methodology used to accomplish a target as prescribed by a policy!

Corporations make policies for the betterment of organizations and for its employees. Here we can assume that it had some policy to reduce communication gap. But what if something that's stated isn't achieved? There comes 'strategy' to accomplish the given target.
--------------------

That's why I think it should be A and not option E.

Hope that helps.