The highest priority should be given to the needs of the sales department, because without successful sales the company as a whole would fail.
There are several departments other than sales that must also function successfully for the company to succeed. It is impossible to give the highest priority to all of them
Ed criticizes Ravi's argument by pointing out:
A) That the sales department taken by itself is not critical to the company's success as a whole.
B) The ambiguity of the term "Highest Priority"
C) That the department other than sales are more vital to the company's success.
D) An absurd consequence of its apparent assumption that a department's necessity earns it the highest priority
E) That Ravi makes a generalization from an atypical case.
This one is from Challenging Sets.
Request you to clear the following doubts
1- I narrowed down to A and D and then finally chose A, however it is incorrect. Can we negate the option A on the basis that option A is focusing on Subject Matter not on Argumentative Technique
2- I adopted the similar strategy to the question posted here-mr-janeck-i-don-t-believe-stevenson-will-win-the-election-90932.html
However, answer turned out to be incorrect. I asked myself what question could have Ravi posted for which Ed providing an answer.
So, the answer turned out to be. i.e Ravi could have posted this question -
Sales department must function successfully for the company to succeed. Hence, it should be given highest priority.
This is what the answer A speaks.
Please let me know where I am going wrong.
The question stem asks you the method used by Ed to criticize Ravi. How did Ed criticize Ravi? Did he question Ravi's premises? Did he point out an assumption? Let's find out.
Ravi says that the sales dept MUST function properly for the company to succeed so it should get the highest priority.
Ed says that many other depts MUST function properly too for the company to succeed. You can't give highest priority to all.
Ed doesn't say that the sales dept is not critical. He only says that there are other depts too which are critical. Ravi made an assumption: If a dept is critical, it should be given the highest priority.
Ed points out the absurd consequence of this assumption: Since there are many depts which are critical, this would mean that all of them should be given highest priority. That's not possible. That's how he criticizes Ravi's statement.
The 'Mr Janeck question' is quite different. It asks you for Ms S's interpretation of Mr J's remark. This question asks you for the method used by Ed to weaken Ravi's argument.