As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers

When dealing with boldfaced questions, start by COMPLETELY IGNORING the boldface and finding the conclusion: "Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program." Now, let's make sure we understand the author's logic, and THEN we can see how the boldfaced portions fit in with that logic:

• Hatchnut is a large corporation in a small country and wants its managers to have international experience.
• In order to give its managers international experience, Hatchnut sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees each year.
• In addition to giving its managers international experience, Hatchnut also uses trainee performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions. So the program has two purposes: to provide international experience and to differentiate candidates for management positions.
• The author explains a problem with the current program: many of the management trainees who graduate from the program leave Hatchnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program.
• According to the author, both of the desired purposes could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the current attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hatchnut should discontinue the sponsorship program. In other words, if there are other ways to accomplish the goals of the program and the current program has a problem that cannot be addressed, Hatchnut should discontinue the current program.

Now let's see which option best describes the roles of the boldfaced portions:


The first BF portion does describe a company practice, but the argument seeks to EVALUATE this practice, not to JUSTIFY it. Furthermore, rather than justifying the practice, the second BF portion suggests that the practice is not needed. (A) can be eliminated.


The argument seeks to EVALUATE the practice rather than EXPLAIN it. Furthermore, the second BF portion does not serve to explain the practice, so (B) can be eliminated.


The first BF portion does introduce a company practice that the argument seeks to evaluate, but the second simply states that there are other ways to achieve the goals of that practice. The second does not necessarily imply that the current practice cannot achieve its objective, so (C) is off the mark.


The first BF portion does introduce a company policy that the argument seeks to evaluate, and the second states that there are other ways to achieve the goals of that policy. If there are other ways to achieve the goals of that policy, then one could argue that the policy is not needed. Choice (D) looks good.


The first BF portion is the policy itself, not a consideration supporting the policy. The second is evidence for concluding that the policy COULD be abandoned (because there are other ways to achieve the policy's goals), but it is not necessarily evidence for concluding that the policy SHOULD be abandoned. Eliminate (E).

Choice (D) is the best answer.
_________________

I'll go with D.

C seems reasonable but the red flag is the word "the practice cannot achieve its objective". First of all "cannot" is too strong of a word and second the objective of the overseas training is "...managers to have
international experience..." is achieved. An international trip does achieve this objective of providing international experience (at least I think)

D sounds better for this reason as it clearly states that "the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed." It says that the policy is not needed but it never says that it does not achieve it objective.

I agree with the argument about the difference between "practice and policy" but I think in this case we can use them interchangebly.

Maybe, I am wrong but then I never claimed to be right...

Because boldface questions deal with the structure of the argument, it's often helpful to figure out how those boldface pieces fit within the structure we know will exist (are they premises or the conclusion? if they are premises, do they support or go against the conclusion?)

The conclusion here is that Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program if the attrition problem continues. The first boldface statement merely states the existence of that sponsorship program. Therefore A, which says the argument tries to “justify” the program, is out—you never even have to read the second half of that choice. Continuing a vertical scan down—just examining the first halves of the choices, we can also eliminate B—the conclusion is not an attempt to explain the program, but a recommendation about what to DO about it. The first half of choice E is also incorrect—the first boldfaced portion is not a consideration SUPPORTING the policy the argument is evaluating, the boldfaced portion *is* that policy.

That leaves C and D, which have identical first halves. On to the second halves! The only difference between the language of C and D is the very last part—“the practice cannot achieve it’s objective” (C) versus “the policy is not needed”(D).

The second boldface states that the goals Hachnut is trying to achieve with the program could be achieved through other means—it is in SUPPORT of the conclusion that the company should discontinue the program. This aligns with choice D (“grounds for holding that the policy is not needed”). While at first glance C may look similar to D , the stimulus never states that the program *can’t* achieve its goals—in fact, the second boldface portion says the opposite: those goals COULD be achieved through other means. D is our answer.

D
I also chose between C and D

C. The first introduces a practice that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second
provides grounds for holding that the practice cannot achieve its objective.

D. The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second
provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.

Conclusion: Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully
addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.

Boldface 1 role: Opposes Main conclusion
Boldface 2 role: Opposes Main Conclusion

A. The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to justify; the second states a
judgment that is used in support of a justification for that practice. [First describes a practice that argument opposes – eliminate it]

B. The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second
presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice. [First describes a practice that argument opposes – eliminate it]


C. The first introduces a practice that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second
provides grounds for holding that the practice cannot achieve its objective.[Second provides an alternative way that practice can be realized – eliminate it]

D. The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second
provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.[Hold it]

E. The first introduces a consideration supporting a policy that the argument seeks to
evaluate; the second provides evidence for concluding that the policy should be
abandoned. [First is not a consideration and second does not providence the policy should be abandoned – eliminate it]

Answer: D

Saying that a policy is not needed is different than providing grounds for holding that the policy is not needed. Saying that there are other ways to achieve the goals of that policy strongly supports the argument that the policy is not needed. The second boldfaced portion provides grounds for (i.e. supports) holding that the policy is not needed, even though it does not PROVE that the policy is not needed.

To evaluate an argument/plan is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument/plan.

If you are explaining a practice, you are trying to describe that practice (i.e. make it plain and understandable). If you are justifying a practice, you are trying to show that it is defensible (i.e. just, right, or reasonable).

I hope that helps!
_________________

Between C and D.
C says that "the practice cannot achieve its objective"
D says that "the policy is not needed".

The second boldfaced part tells that the goal .....could be achieved in other way" of if the goal could be achived in other way, thus trainings are not needed , and this does not mean that it can not achive its objectives.
IT CAN! But there are also other ways to achive the same objectives.

D.
_________________

Chose D over E. For me it was clear that the second bold was a premise, after finding the conclusion. So I narrowed it down pretty quickly.
Now, E is a good contender but let's analyze it more thoroughly, mind you?
"The first introduces a consideration supporting a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate"
It is not actually supporting anything, it is the policy itself. That is why E is out.

D is pretty clear to me. The first is a policy, the second is a premise supporting the main conclusion
Hope it helps
Kudos if you like!
J

The first BF is: "each year [Hatchnut] sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees."

This can be described as either a policy or as a practice -- it would be equally valid to say each of the following:

• Hatchnut has a practice of sponsoring management education abroad OR
• Hatchnut has a policy of sponsoring management education abroad

If there is a difference in meaning between "practice" and "policy" in this context, it is too subtle to use as a reason to eliminate an answer choice.

Luckily, there is a huge difference in the end of (C) and (D). The author never argues that the program CANNOT achieve its objective -- he/she just thinks that IF a certain problem cannot be addressed, then the program should be discontinued. This is a solid reason to get rid of (C).

As for the word "consideration," it means just what it would in a non-CR context: it's just a factor that is taken into account when making a decision or judgment. The first BF is the policy itself, not a factor that supports the policy.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Between C & D

C says that the first phrase is a practice, however, it is actually a policy..
Also from the second bold phrase it cannot be said that the practice cannot be achieved. However, nothing in argument says anything about achieving something out of the practice. It only states that there are other ways.

D is the answer.

Can anyone explain option B for me?

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.=> fact(BF1)

Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program.=> fact

Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. => claim/belief (BF2)

Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program. =>Conclusion

Conclusion drawn on the basis of BF1 but is against the practice.
BF2 supports Conclusion. It gives a reason for Conclusion.
BF2 states BF1 is not the only way.

> 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 a judgment that is used in support of a justification for that practice.
>First part is wrong.

> B. The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.
>first part is correct. Though, I have my reservations towards the word 'explain'. Second looks like an explanation. Yet, I'd keep this choice on hold.

> C. The first introduces a practice that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the practice cannot achieve its objective.
>first part is correct. Second part is incorrect. Second doesnt provide grounds for how the practice wouldnt hold

> D. The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.
>first and second are correct. This clearly seems to be better than B and I'd go for it. The only problem I have with this is, second doesnt say that the policy is not needed. Rather it says that there are alternatives available.

> E. The first introduces a consideration supporting a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides evidence for concluding that the policy should be abandoned
>first is not a consideration. Second doesnt talk about abandoning the practice.

D looks like the answer. Yet, I need to understand B further.

Bold face 1: each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees.
This is a statement that needs to be evaluated. Eliminate options A and B

Bold face 2: but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways
It simply says that there are other ways too to provide international experience to the employees.
it does not give any judgement about the effectiveness or the existence of the program.

Option C says that the policy cannot achieve its objective. This is not what the statement means. Moreover cannot is too strong a word.
Option E says that the policy should be banned. This again is not mentioned or implied anywhere.

Option D says that there are other ways too. This is what is meant by the passage.

Correct Option: D

If there are other ways to achieve the goals of that policy, then one could argue that the policy MAY not be needed. Can we say that the policy IS not needed?

One more thing, would you please share what is the fundamental difference between evaluate, justify and explain?
_________________

Can someone explain what's the difference between the meaning of these two part of option D and E:

(D)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate

(E) The first introduces a consideration supporting a policy

It might help to simplify even further:


Choice (D) states that the first BF portion introduces the policy itself. Plain and simple.
Choice (E) states that the first BF portion introduces some thought or analysis about the policy. Not the policy itself.

I hope this helps!
_________________

GMATNinja

Doubt

For C & D, I dont think the first halfs are the same.

C - says that is a practise, which makes sense
D - says that is a policy, which cant be the case. ( As - "managers to have international experience" is a policy & "each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees" is the way they practise the policy)

Please Can you help me understand this better


ALso in E, what does the word consideration for mean in CR GMAT?

each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees.
but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways.

1) Plan/policy for each year to achieve certain goal (education abroad for MTs) Boldfaced
2) Counter-evidence = Plan's not working due to something.. (attrition rate)
3) Some other goal to be achieve with the same plan (performance)
4) Alternate claim (Goal can be achieved in other ways) Boldfaced
5) Conclusion (discontinue the program)
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A,B,E are not close to what we found.

(C) The first introduces a practice that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the practice cannot achieve its objective. = It provides the grounds for an alternate plan but NOT a DIRECT claim that current plan CANNOT achieve its objective. We know that attrition rate is high but that doesnt mean every employee is leaving the company, that would be little extreme.

(D) The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed. = Best of all and correct.
_________________

I was very confused on this question because I could not justify the use of the word "policy" here. To sponsor something on a regular basis clearly is a practice (=action) that relies on a policy (=a set of ideas).

Big grunt for me.

Similar questions to practice:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/as-a-large-c ... 28679.html (GMAT Prep Focus)
https://gmatclub.com/forum/as-a-large-c ... 22377.html­ (GMAT Prep Focus)
_________________