OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Although measuring the productivity of outside consultants is a complex endeavor,
Company K, which relies heavily on consultants for longterm projects, must find ways to assess the performance of these workers. The risks to a company that does not review the productivity of its human resources are simply too great.
Last year, Company L was forced into receivership after its productivity declined for the third straight quarter.The bolded phrases play which of the following roles in the argument above?
As you read the question, the first things that should jump out at you are the words “bolded phrases,” which signal that this is an identify-the-reasoning question. And the first thing to do in an identify-the-reasoning question is to find the conclusion. Where is it? If you said “in the second half of the first sentence,” then you are doing just fine. Company K, according to the argument, should find a way to measure the productivity of its consultants. The second sentence merely reiterates the first, and the third sentence supports the conclusion with what appears to be an analogous situation.
As you look at the answer choices, look for an answer that correctly explains the purpose of the two bolded phrases. Now, let’s look at the answer choices:
A. The first phrase states the author’s conclusion, and the second phrase refutes that conclusion.
The first bolded phrase is, in fact, the conclusion of the passage; so far, so good. But does the second phrase refute that conclusion? Not at all. In fact, it seems to be supporting it. Eliminate it.B. The first phrase states an assumption of the argument, and the second phrase provides evidence to undermine that position.
We’ve already determined that the first bolded phrase is the conclusion of the argument—but even if we weren’t sure of that, we could rule out this answer choice because an assumption is never stated in the passage. Even if you missed that, you would probably be able to eliminate this answer choice because the second bolded phrase seems to be supporting the first phrase, not undermining it. Eliminate it.C. The first phrase states one of the author’s premises, and the second phrase provides the argument’s conclusion.
A premise is evidence in support of a conclusion. The first bolded phrase (about Company K) seems less a piece of evidence than the conclusion itself. The second bolded phrase is about another company entirely and seems to be offered in support of the first sentence; in other words, it is not likely to be the conclusion of the argument. Eliminate it.D. The first phrase states a position, and the second phrase refutes that position.
Like answer choices A and B, this says the second bolded phrase refutes the first. Because this is clearly not so, we can forget about this answer choice as well. Eliminate it.E. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second phrase supports the conclusion with an analogy.
Because we have eliminated all the other possibilities, you should feel hopeful that this is the best answer, but never skip the final step and assume that choice E must be right without reading it. Does the first bolded phrase state the conclusion of the argument? Yes, it does. Does the second phrase support the conclusion with an analogy? Yes, in fact it does. The argument compares Company K’s situation to that of Company L. If this were a weaken-the-argument question, you would need to be asking yourself if these two companies were actually analogous. However, in this case, all we have to do is pick answer choice E and move on. _________________