Hi!

I'll give my shot answering your question about B

As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions, Grayson is an excellent choice to chair the new council on business-labor relations.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?
(A) The new council must have the support of the nation’s labor leaders if it is to succeed.
(B) During his years as a labor leader, Grayson established a record of good relations with business leaders.
(C) The chair of the new council must be a person who can communicate directly with the leaders of the nation’s largest labor unions.
(D) Most of the other members of the new council will be representatives of business management interests.
(E) An understanding of the needs and problems of labor is the only qualification necessary for the job of chairing the new council.


How about this thought?

Yes, B really says sth that imples Grayson's competence. But, who says "having a good relationship" garantee his competence as the chairman? In other words, if you consider this characteristic may help Grayson to be a good chairman, there's equal possibility that it may do little help to his chairman job. Who knows? we don't add on assumptions in CR, right.

While, E, directly points out the relationship between the ability needed for the job post(chairman) and the ability possessed by Grayson.

I just feel a little imperfection that ,here in E, we have to consider"an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions" equal to"An understanding of the needs and problems of labor". I also admit that this is kinda "asssumption" we need to add to equalize the above 2. well, at least this assumption is more acceptable than the one B used ,right?

Hi Kaja,

The 'guarantee' in your argument is the crux of the issue. No one disagrees the (E) is the stronger answer; (E) guarantees that Grayson will be a good chair, while (B) merely implies it. I definitely jumped the gun when I ruled out (E) in my first post on this thread several months ago.

However, the issue here is whether the GMAT will ever make the distinction between implying and guaranteeing. In Kaplan's experience, the answer is 'no'. All GMAT Strengthen/Weaken CR problems will have one answer that unconditionally strengthens/weakens the link between evidence and conclusion, and four that do not. In this problem, however, if Grayson can create strong business relations while heading a labor union, it unconditionally and absolutely strengthens his candidacy to head a council on union-business relations. Thus, the Kaplan teachers in this thread doubt the validity of this 1000 CR question; we believe it would not appear in this form on the actual GMAT.

Hey,Eli!

I also hope I won't meet with this kind of problem in actual test! It is sooooo hard that I can't figure it out within 2 min~~

about this Grayson problem, I don't agree about your saying that" if Grayson can create strong business relations while heading a labor union, it unconditionally and absolutely strengthens his candidacy to head a council on union-business relations. " First,you alrealy added an assumption here that "while he had great relationship during last job, he can continue it at this job". More important, another assumption you made is that "he has good relationship now, he can be a good chairman." which comes out nowhere. I mean, just as I said, B just gave an advantage of grayson, but don't make a clear bridge between this advantage and the competence. On the other hand E made that bridge while, yes, still have some imperfection. The point is the "clear bridge".

And about the dicussion between you and Tommy, I'd rather say the two theories are consistent, just discribing "relativity" in different scales. If the logical relationship underlying one CR question is the center of a circle, your circle and Tommy's circle are both around that center, only yours has a shorter radius than Tommy's. Therefore, in your theorecal realm, only one answer is relavant enough to get in your little circle whereas for Tommy's bigger circle, maybe 2 choices can get in, and one is nearer to the center than the other ,which you may "define" as "irrelavant" with stricter limit.

Actually, you two have the same view on those 2 choices about their "distances" to the center.

Well, I agree that if we can presicely find that little circle when doing CR problems, we can easily beat it because there's only one left for the right choice. But this little circle sometimes against our common sense therefore hard for people(or say ,for me) to set the boundary, especially considering the time pressure during exam.
Tommy's circle which seems is defined with the same radius with GMAC explanations, is more easily accepted as it more follows common sense. Also,this method is a little harder in the respect that we may always have to choose between 2 choices.

Back to the Grayson problem, I think if my understanding of B is right , B is irrelevant thus won't strenghthen the conclusion in your theory.

But is B relevant?
We can say B is irrelevant (as there's no bridge connecting the relationship between successful chairman and previnient established social network),
but meanwhile, we can say B is relevant, as it is ...just common sense(we don't even need to explain the belief that good social network within some industry helps a lot when you do a relevant job).


Then, which circle is better for us test-takers? I think it depends. Just take the one you feel better fit.

Hi Kaja,

With only the evidence of the prompt, it's entirely possible the Grayson spent his entire career as a labor leader spitting in the face of businesses, fighting tooth and nail for every scrap of pay and benefits for his workers. If this were the case, as an enemy of business, he would be a poor choice to head a council on business-labor relations.

Choice (B) tells us that the above situation is NOT the case--although we still do not know the entirety of Grayson's background, we do know that he is both able and willing to maintain positive relations with business leaders.

I think the confusion is that you are looking for the answer that proves that Grayson will be a good leader. (E) does that, and (B) does not. But that isn't what the GMAT asks. Rather, the GMAT asks us to strengthen the argument. Anything that eliminates alternate possibilities or rules out alternate interpretations of the evidence, as (B) clearly does, counts as a strengthener for GMAT purposes. Or, in other words, if (E) were eliminated, (B) could be the correct answer. Thus, Tesluv and I both doubt the validity of this question.

hi,Eli,

I agree that if E is eliminated then B will come out for the best one.
I think I know why you question the vadility of this CR problem, do you mean the only way in GMAT to strenghthen a conclusion is to"eliminates alternate possibilities or rules out alternate interpretations " , is it??

I was trying to make this CR a clearer and easier way to understand. E is strenghthening the conclusion by clarifying the relationship between the evidence and conclusion. I know, this kind of logic always appears in the kind of"which of the following best explain..." questions, but it IS a way to strenghen the conclusion isn't it?
so do you mean that this logic"clarifying the evidence and relationship" can't be the logic underlying in the "strenghen" problem?
I don't know, I think instructors as you must have much more experience to make that judgement.

Not quite.

In this problem, if you elimnate choice (E), then (B) is the correct answer.
In a proper GMAT problem, if you eliminate the correct answer there is NO correct answer. GMAT problems do not have a 'second best'. They have one right and four rotten.

Hey Kaja,

I still agree with you! : )

Just to weigh in again, take a look at the spinach factory question I cite earlier in this thread (page 1). This is a real GMAT question. The correct answer is the one that says they will be able to sell the spinach to a bunch of restaurants. However, that is NOT a foolproof argument. There's no way of knowing HOW much spinach we'd have to sell to make a profit, or if a few health food restaurants will make the difference. We DO have to make some assumptions.

Similarly, the answer choice describing how costs will eventually be cut MUST also relate to profit. If Profit = Revenue - Cost, and you know you're going to cut costs, you also know you're going to raise Profits. Where Eli and I agree (and you're right that we mostly do), is that the answer choice about health food restaurants is ABSOLUTELY better. However, it is NOT foolproof, and there ARE two answer choices that strengthen. In my opinion.

-t

I still disagree about the Spinach problem. What Tommy is overlooking is that there are two ways that the hydroponic factory's spinach could be profitable: if its spinach sells for a large enough premium to offset costs, or if its increased costs are temporary and drop to below normal after a high initial investment. Choice (A) increases the likelihood of the first outcome, but completely rules out the second. It's like flattening carpeting that's too big--you stomp out the lump in one corner, and it pops up in the other.

Note that I definitely overstated my position earlier. I said that there will never be two answers that strengthen the prompt, and that was too absolute a statement--Tommy was correct about that. But there is a clear difference between (A) in the spinach problem, which kinda strengthens the prompt but might also weaken it depending on how you squint, and (B) in Grayson problem, which directly bridges a gap between the author's Evidence and Assumption.

Tommy and I agree the second problem (E) is better. But my test preparation experience tells me that the only reason (B) is wrong is because (E) is right. And my test preparation experience tells me that the GMAT will never require you to look at the other answer choices to eliminate an incorrect answer choice--there is no way that choice (A) could ever be the correct answer choice to the Spinach problem, and that is something that can be determined by reading (A) and reading the prompt, irrespective of the presence of a different better answer.

Conclusion = Grayson is an excellent choice to chair the new council on business-labor relations.
Premise = Grayson is an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions

Firstly, I confuse between choice C and E. In choice C, which stated that the chair of the new council must be a person who can communicate directly with the leaders of the nation's largest labor union. I try to negate this one although this is not the technique use for strengthen type. In negated form, we will find there are many people qualified for this chair.

However, in choice E, "understanding of the needs and problems of labor is necessary for the chair" is enough for Grayson to be the most potential man for this position.
_________________

Very tricky problem!

Remember that the real key to every "Strengthen/Weaken" problem is the Assumption (that is, the unwritten portion of the argument that is necessary to make the argument logical). Even though the problem is not directly asking for the assumption, the only way to strengthen an argument is to affirm the assumption, and the only way to weaken an argument is to attack an assumption.

In general, an assumption fills a gap between the premises and the conclusion. For the argument at hand, we have

Conclusion: "Grayson is an excellent choice to chair the new
council on business-labor relations."

Premise: Grayson is "an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one of the nation’s
most powerful labor unions."

Notice the difference in language here – the conclusion speaks of "business-labor relations," whereas the premise only mentions Grayson's experience with labor organization and labor unions. There's a disconnect here – what about the business side of things??

Note that there is nothing special about "Mr. Grayson" here. The author of this argument would say that anyone with sufficient labor experience is qualified to head up this business-labor relations council. Therefore, the real assumption made is essentially "Labor experience is the only necessary qualification for chairing the business-labor relations council."

Answer choices (B) and (C) attempt to bridge the gap by claiming that Grayson also has business credentials. Of course, future B-schoolers think this is a good thing! But remember not to bring in real-world notions to GMAT CR!!

Only choice (E) addresses the underlying assumption, that an understanding of labor is the only needed qualification.

Hope that helps!

Mark
_________________

Let's talk about the question again. According to answer choice(A). Suppose the price of California produce spinach $1 and four times of that $4 is the price of newly built spinach. Now let's say the workers reduced the cost by 25%, still it will costs $3 for the newly built spinach. Thus, it's not at all strengthening our case. Note, this is the trap that Gmat wants us to fall for.

Hi Tommy,
I just have one question about option E. The premise says that Grayson was the labor organizer and head of one of most powerful labor unions, however isn't that a stretch that by being at those positions he has an understanding of the needs and problems of the labor and even if he had that understanding when he was the head or organizer, how can we be sure that those needs and problems have not changed over the years. It'd be great if you can help.

Thanks

Dear Friends,

Here is the detailed explanation of this question-



This is one of those CR questions where multiple answer choices are good. Among the answer choices that strengthen the argument, you need to identify which answer choice strengthens it the MOST.

Mind-map: Grayson is expert in labor organization and led a labor union -> so, he is a good choice to lead the council on business-labor relations.

Missing link: Between Grayson’s labor domain experience and deduction that he will excel in business-labor relations.

Expectation from the correct answer choice: To show that Grayson’s experience will make him excel in his new role.

Choice A: This answer choice is talking about the nation’s labor leaders and not about Grayson specifically; as it does not suggest how Grayson’s experience will help him excel in his new role, the answer choice is incorrect.
Choice B: Trap. This answer choice strengthens the conclusion to a small extent; having good relations with business leaders is not the same as having a good understanding of business; the answer choice is weak as it fails to strongly establish how Grayson’s experience will help him do well in the new role.
Choice C: This answer choice indicates that the head of the new council should be able to communicate directly with large labor unions; however, while Grayson holds extensive experience in the labor domain, it cannot be said whether he can communicate directly with leaders of other labor unions; the answer choice does not show how Grayson’s experience will help him excel in his new role; hence, it is not the correct choice.
Choice D: This answer choice is talking about other members of the new council and while they may be able to help Grayson with business management issues, it is not clear how Grayson’s specific experience will add value; as the answer choice fails to establish how Grayson’s experience will make him perform in his new role, it is not a fine answer choice.
Choice E: This answer choice clearly focuses on the ONLY qualification needed to chair the new council; as this qualification is one that Grayson can completely justify (due to his experience in labor organization and leading a powerful labor union) and use to perform in his new role, this is a fine answer choice.

Hence, E is the correct answer choice.

To understand the concept of “Characteristics of a Strengthening Statement on GMAT Critical Reasoning”, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________