A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs

A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company’s warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.
Premises:
More complex repair jobs have to be reworked under warranty.
2. Reworked jobs are satisfactory
3.initial repairs are inadequate
Conclusion:
Reworked jobs are done with focused concentration and reliably than first time jobs.

I ended up with Options(C) & (D), but didn't thought about option(A). Can you please explain where I went wrong? Why A is correct? Why C & D are wrong?
c) Warranty is not available for reworked jobs. So, these are done with more concentration.
d) Negation of this makes the conclusion more believable.

Its a necessary assumption question.


A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company’s warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

A. There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.Correct

B. There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.Irrelevant Information

C. Ace Repairs’ warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs. .Contradict with the argument by providing opposite information

D. Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.Outside The Scope of the Argument

E. There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.Outside The Scope of the argument

The author has clearly stated in the premise that the initial repairs are inadequate not because the mechanics lack competence but because focus is more when the work is done a second time. So, he definitely assumes that the mechanics who do the job the first time and those who do the rework belong to the genre which is what is stated in "A". If you reverse the answer choice that is there is systematic difference then in the reversed form the answer choice goes against the conclusion.

A is definitely the winner, but, I think, A could have been worded better. "systematic difference in membership" does not necessarily mean difference in competence.

What if the reworks are actually done by a different group, which has the same competence as the group which did the first hand job?
In such case, negating A does not shatter the conclusion that the competence is not the reason behind the need to rework.

Thanks.

Systematic difference in membership" holistically encompasses all factors. "Systematic difference in competence" would be too specific.The very phrase "No systematic difference in membership" indicates that the two sets of people that is, the group involved in the first time work and the group doing the rework happens to be the same. But if we change the wording to "systematic difference in membership" then it might imply to two different groups which would go against the conclusion. Remember assumptions are made by the author himself and these would invariably support the conclusion,not go against the conclusion.

Hi Aryama,

Thanks for ur reply. I think there is a typo in ur response (marked in red). I understand what u said and agree that A is a 100% valid assumption.

Just let me know one thing, how is it against the conclusion that there are two groups of identical competencies. One did the first job, second the rework. Still the conclusion holds that the competency isn't the factor behind the errors, isn't it?

Thanks.

Yes you are correct. "Competency" is not the factor behind the errors. "Concentration" or the focus of the workers is the factor which contributes to the difference in the work. When the same group is doing the repair work for the first time the concentration is less but during the rework the focus is more. It is clearly implied in the argument that the members of the group are necessarily not different. Just the focus differs.

A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company’s warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.

Type - Assumption
Boil it down - Not lack of competence , but lack of focused concentration causes initial repairs to be inadequate
Pre-Thinking - The mechanics involved in initial repair and those involved in rework have the same level of competency


The argument above assumes which of the following?

A. There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.
Correct
B. There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs. Irrelevant
C. Ace Repairs’ warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs. Irrelevant
D. Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked. Incorrect - even if it does penalize , this is not an assumption
E. There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily. Out of scope - as we have only concerned with the repair jobs that need rework

Answer A

Can someone please tell me why E is incorrect.

I am continuously choosing trap answer for assumptions questions. If someone can please tell me what is the difference between A and E . They both seems like assumptions author is making.

Regards
Megha

The whole argument is about complex repair jobs and their rework.

E is a very extreme answer choice stating that there is NO repairing job that could be done first time satisfactorily.

There could be some non complex repairing jobs that are done satisfactorily first time itself. So, E is a straight out.

Remember, in assumptions, one should always avoid Extreme answer choices.

Premise :- Mehanics do not lack competence.
Conclusion :- Reworked jobs are done with focused concentration and reliably than first time jobs.

Try negating A again. It actually does weaken the conclusion. Negating A says that there is some systematic difference in memberships between the group of mechanics who do 1st time jobs and those that do rework jobs. The author says that the rework jobs are always done correctly. His conclusion is that this is not due to a lack of competence by the mechanics, but rather by gained concentration in the 2nd jobs. So he makes an assumption that the same set of mechanics are working on the first job as are working on the rework. If there is a second group of mechanics that takes care of the reworks, than the faulty first repairs could have been the result of incompetent mechanics.

E talks about only repair jobs and the argument is about complex repair jobs..
So saying that there is NO category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs.... is not warranted by the argument ...

Hence A.

At first glance, neither of the options make sense. Since option B,C,D and E are totally irrelevant, that's why I chose A. But, even option "A" is awfully written. What does the part in red refer to? What sort of membership is the option talking about? It could have been written in a better way.

A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company’s warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

[A] There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.

[B] There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs. -Out of scope

[C] Ace Repairs’ warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs. -Out of scope

[D] Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked. -Out of scope

[E] There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily. - This is a very extreme sentence.

Let’s understand the details of the argument.

1) A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company’s warranty.
2) The reworked jobs have always been satisfactory.
3) the initial repairs are not enough,

Conclusion- it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.

The question is to find the assumption.

(A) There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.
Let’s negate option A to see if it will impact our conclusion.
The negation of A gives us- There is a systematic difference between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of mechanics who do rework jobs or that - more competent mechanics work on rework jobs and less competent mechanics work on first-time jobs.

This would mean that it is because of the competency of the mechanics that the rework jobs are always satisfactory and the first-time jobs are always brought for rework- This would negate the conclusion. Hence A is the assumption on which the argument is based on.

(B) There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.

Even if there were a company that successfully competed with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs, it would still not affect the conclusion. Eliminate B

(C) Ace Repairs’ warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.

So? Irrelevant. Eliminate C

(D) Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.

Even if it did, it will not impact the conclusion. Eliminate D


(E) There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.

Let’s try and negate this

There is a category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.

How much does the category constitute? If it constitutes a significant size, it would go against the premise and not the conclusion. Eliminate E

Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team

Although Option A is the best answer because all others are completely irrelevant, Option A could have been worded differently.
With this wording, it looks more like a strengthener than an assumption

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.