|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 147
WE 1: 3 (Mining Operations)
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
 25 Aug 2010, 05:10
A very nice and enriching debate between the instructors. I also went for B. I thought that : 1) A labour nominated for business relation post. Thought process: I need to show that this guy have some business sense. and B phrased that  B) During his years as a labor leader, Grayson established a record of good relations with business leaders. He is a Labor leader : Got It !!!..He is expert on Labor Side. Record of Good relation with Business leaders : Done for sure !!! What else I need for the post like Business Labour Relation ???? Now E states that "Understanding labor....necessary".....well.this is a fact, and we are qualifying Head of Labor Relations that he understands the problem. Do we mean to say that in option B "During his years as a labor leader" is not sufficient to qualify Mr.Grayson, who understand labor feelings...... Dont know, even after reading a lot of explanations, B remains an attractive. I pray such questions are not asked @ GMAT.
_________________
Regards,
Invincible...
"The way to succeed is to double your error rate."
"Most people who succeed in the face of seemingly impossible conditions are people who simply don't know how to quit."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 20
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Sep 2010, 21:28
praveenism wrote: A very nice and enriching debate between the instructors. I also went for B. I thought that : 1) A labour nominated for business relation post. Thought process: I need to show that this guy have some business sense. and B phrased that B) During his years as a labor leader, Grayson established a record of good relations with business leaders. He is a Labor leader : Got It !!!..He is expert on Labor Side. Record of Good relation with Business leaders : Done for sure !!! What else I need for the post like Business Labour Relation ???? Now E states that "Understanding labor....necessary".....well.this is a fact, and we are qualifying Head of Labor Relations that he understands the problem. Do we mean to say that in option B "During his years as a labor leader" is not sufficient to qualify Mr.Grayson, who understand labor feelings...... Dont know, even after reading a lot of explanations, B remains an attractive. I pray such questions are not asked @ GMAT. 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 640
Location: Cambridge, MA
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
12 Sep 2010, 11:50
Kaja wrote: Yes, B really says sth that imples Grayson's competence. But, who says "having a good relationship" guarantee 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.
_________________
Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT
Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course!
Kaplan Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 20
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Sep 2010, 00:44
KapTeacherEli wrote: Kaja wrote: Yes, B really says sth that imples Grayson's competence. But, who says "having a good relationship" guarantee 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 640
Location: Cambridge, MA
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Sep 2010, 12:27
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.
_________________
Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT
Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course!
Kaplan Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 20
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Sep 2010, 18:25
KapTeacherEli wrote: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 640
Location: Cambridge, MA
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Sep 2010, 19:13
Kaja wrote: 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?? 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.
_________________
Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT
Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course!
Kaplan Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 340
Location: San Francisco
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Sep 2010, 20:02
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 640
Location: Cambridge, MA
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Sep 2010, 22:10
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.
_________________
Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT
Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course!
Kaplan Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 798
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Jun 2012, 01:28
99999 wrote: 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. 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.
_________________
Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you
The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need
CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2717
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one [#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Apr 2018, 20:51
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: As an experienced labor organizer and the former head of one
[#permalink]
18 Apr 2018, 20:51
|
|
|
|
|
Go to page
Previous
1 2
[ 31 posts ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
close
