As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate from this program is becoming increasingly high, with many especially promising participants leaving Hachnut to join competing firms even before completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but it finds itself more and more in the position of selecting from a critically depleted pool of candidates. The program is thus beginning to work against Hachnut's interest. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to justify; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
B. The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to justify; the second identifies a standard that any successful Justification would have to meet.
C. The first is an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in order to support the main conclusion of the argument; the second states that main conclusion.
D. The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second states a criterion to be used in that evaluation.
E. The first raises a consideration against abandoning the policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second states the evaluation at which the argument arrives.
I think the major tussle is between A and E.
In option A:
BF2 is correct.
BF1: describe a practice that the argument seeks to justify. The practice mentioned in BF1 is choosing management positions on the basis of candidate's performance in the sponsored program. Is the argument seeking to justify / evaluate the management positions' hiring practice or is it trying to question the usefulness of the sponsorship program? It is the latter, and thus BF1 is incorrect.
In option E:
BF2: it states the evaluation at which the argument arrives = conclusion at which the argument arrives. True.
BF1: raises a consideration against abandoning the policy that the argument seeks evaluate.
Whenever the sentence is so convoluted, writing it down and fleshing it out helps me think more clearly.
against abandoning = don't abandon = double negatives = favouring
policy that argument seeks to evaluate = the sponsorship program
So basically BF1 is saying that - it is raising a reason for favouring the sponsorship policy i.e. it is giving us a reason to keep the sponsorship policy because it is might be of some use. What is the use as per BF1? That the performance in the sponsored program is used to find candidates for management positions. So, maybe, the sponsorship program has some positive use and we should keep it and not abandon it. The meaning fits correctly.
Answer E.