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?

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,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.

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
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

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.
_________________

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question