Accountant: This company simply cannot afford to hire a new

Question

Accountant: This company simply cannot afford to hire a new salesperson.With salespeople we not only incur the salary and healthcare costs, but also the costs of a new computer, a business cell phone plan, and mileage reimbursement for driving to sales appointments. This new salesperson could raise our monthly expenses by a full 10%.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the accountant’s argument?

A. The cost of a computer is a one-time cost and would therefore not affect the company’s recurring monthly expenses.

B. Many sales appointments can be conducted via free video conferencing software, thereby reducing the expenses related to mileage reimbursement.

C. The company’s closest competitor employs nearly twice as many salespeople.

D. Because of the demand for the company’s products, a new salesperson is likely to account for several times as much revenue as the cost of employing her.

E. The company will not be able to reduce its existing expenses by enough to counterbalance the costs of a new salesperson.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

In this Weaken question, the accountant argues that "we cannot afford to hire a new salesperson," and then lists as premises the various costs that would add up to a 10% cost increase for the company. What is the gap in logic? Costs are only one part of the profit equation: there's also revenue. And the argument doesn't talk at all about the revenue that this new salesperson could bring in. You should seize on that gap and scan the argument for reasons that revenues would increase more than the costs would.

Choice (D) offers exactly that: if a new salesperson would bring in much more than it costs to employ her, the conclusion crumbles. (D) is correct.

Among the other choices:

(A) and (B) each only address one of the many costs of employing the new salesperson, so you're still stuck with the negative premise that monthly costs will be up by 10%. Remember: you cannot argue with the premises, only with the validity of the conclusion.

(C) misses the scope of the argument, which is only about whether the company can afford this new salesperson. Whether or not other companies can afford more employees doesn't factor in to this particular analysis of one company's financial situation.

And (E) actually strengthens the argument, if anything, demonstrating that the 10% incremental cost is unlikely to be mitigated by other savings.

punitmultani · Answer

The Mission: Weaken the argument.
The Conclusion: "This company simply cannot afford to hire a new salesperson."
The Premise: A new hire adds salary, healthcare, and equipment costs, raising monthly expenses by 10%.
The Gap: The accountant is only looking at the cost side of the ledger. But a salesperson's entire job is to bring in money. If the new revenue far exceeds the 10% bump in expenses, the company can easily afford the hire. We need an answer choice that proves the ROI is positive.

Options:

A (Computer cost): This only nibbles at a minor, one-time cost. It doesn't address the main recurring expenses (salary/healthcare) or prove overall affordability.

B (Video conferencing): Similar to A, this reduces one minor expense (mileage) but leaves the core argument untouched.

C (Competitor's staff): Out of scope. A competitor's payroll size doesn't change this company's balance sheet.

E (Cannot reduce other expenses): Reverse logic. This actually strengthens the accountant's argument by confirming the costs can't be offset elsewhere.

The Correct Answer is D.
It attacks the gap directly. By stating that the new hire will generate several times their own cost in revenue, it completely destroys the conclusion that the company "cannot afford" to bring them on.

Vivek1707 · Answer

A Even if the computer is a one-time cost, the salary and other recurring costs remain. This weakens the argument only slightly.
B Reducing mileage expenses helps, but it doesn't address the accountant's main concern about the overall cost of hiring.
C. What the competitor does has no bearing on whether this company can afford another salesperson.
D. Yup, The accountant looks only at the costs. If the new salesperson is likely to generate far more revenue than those costs, then hiring may actually improve the company's financial position.
E. This reinforces the accountant's claim by showing the company can't offset the added expenses elsewhere.

Accountant: This company simply cannot afford to hire a new

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

­Accountant: This company simply cannot afford to hire a new

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Accountant: This company simply cannot afford to hire a new