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.

Kaplan Method for Critical Reasoning.
Step 1: Analyze the question stem.
"Strengthen" makes it clear we're dealing with a strengthen question; we'll need to find evidence, conclusion, and assumption.

Step 2: Untangle the stimulus
Evidence: Greyson has experience in unions and labor organzation.
Conclusion: Greyson will do well in business labor relations.

We're dealing with a classic scope shift here; the evidence discusses experience in one job, the conclusion predicts success in another. So, the assumption is:

"Greyson's experience as a labor leader will make him good at business relations."

Step 3: Predict an answer.

For a strengthener, the prediction is straightforward--we're looking for an answer that shows us how Greyson's experience at his past job qualifies him for this new one.

Step 4: Evaluate the answer choices.

(B) Matches our prediction exactly--Greyson's experience as a leader helped him with building good relationships.

There are several tempting answer choices, but each has its own pitfalls. (C) introduces communication; while we may presume that communication is vital for the job, this isn't necessarily the case. It's out of scope. (E), meanwhile, is too extreme--understanding labor is probably helpful in this new council position, but it's certainly not the only qualification.
_________________

On further examination, I was hasty in eliminating (E). (E) certainly strengthens the answer--"only" makes it too extreme to be an assumption, but the argument is strengthened indeed if the only qualification necessary is the one he has.

That being said, the reason that I eliminated (E) was that there isn't actually anything wrong with (B); it directly reaffirms the assumption. Once I saw that it matched our prediction perfectly, I hastily assumed that the others had to be wrong. I suppose in this case an argument could be made that is strengthens the argument 'less' than (E) does, because of the introduction of the idea of business "leaders". However, (B) directly bridges that gap between the evidence (Grayson's work as a labor leader) and the conclusion (his ability to work in business-labor relations.) The real GMAT never has answers that 'strengthen less' and 'strenghten more'; there will be four answers do not strengthen the argument, and exactly one that does. I've heard a lot of complaints about the quality of the 1000 CR questions, and I think this is another example.

Still, Suvorov, thanks for pointing out my hastiness with (E)!
_________________

I think the total answer is somewhere between the two of us. I in no way want to contradict a fellow instructor, and Eli is correct in that there should always be one answer choice that strengthens or weakens MUCH more strongly (making the others looks wussy and out of scope in comparison with its awesomeness). However, it is simply not true that there will NEVER be other answer choices that also strengthen or weaken. There's a reason the question is worded as it is:

"Which of the following, if true, would MOST strengthen the conclusion above?" [emphasis mine]

Inherent in that "most strengthen" is the idea that multiple answer choices could strengthen the argument, but if they do, one will strengthen MORE. I shouldn't have to prove this, because the wording of the questions is very straightforward on this subject, but there are indeed MANY questions with slight strengthens or slight weakens. This is merely the first question we teach in our strengthen/weaken section. It's from the OFFICIAL Guides (Verbal Guide - #23) -- Answer choice A definitely strengthens, but C strengthens more:

Near Chicago a newly built hydroponic spinach “factory,” a completely controlled environment for growing spinach, produces on 1 acre of floor space what it takes 100 acres of fields to produce. Expenses, especially for electricity, are high, however, and the spinach produced costs about four times as much as washed California field spinach, the spinach commonly sold throughout the United States.
Which of the following, if true, best supports a projection that the spinach-growing facility near Chicago will be profitable?

(A) Once the operators of the facility are experienced, they will be able to cut operating expenses by 25 percent.
(B) There is virtually no scope for any further reduction in the cost per pound for California field spinach.
(C) Unlike washed field spinach, the hydroponically grown spinach is untainted by any pesticides or herbicides and thus will sell at exceptionally high prices to such customers as health food restaurants.
(D) Since spinach is a crop that ships relatively well, the market for the hydroponically grown spinach is no more limited to the Chicago area than the market for California field spinach is to California.
(E) A second hydroponic facility is being built in Canada, taking advantage of inexpensive electricity and high vegetable prices.

Now C is clearly better here, but that doesn't change the fact that A DOES strengthen (operating expenses are quite high, so if operating expenses get cut, that should help the factory be profitable). There are many other similar examples throughout the OG.

Hope that helps!
_________________

I'm afraid I have to disagree; this situation isn't comparable to the 1000 cr question problem in the original post. The difference is that in this problem, A) seems to strengthen the answer, but actually doesn't. Note the bolded part--with the information in (A), we will have spinach that begins costing four times as much as other spinach, and ends up at three times as much as regular spinach. (A) could be said to weaken the argument, since it makes it less likely that the fancy spinach will drop to a price comparable to that of regular spinach.

In the original question, (B) bridges the logical gap in the original argument--that experience leading labor organizations qualifies Grayson to manage relations between business and labor. (B) is neither definitive nor conclusive, but it does strengthen that unstated assumption. In other words, (B) is wrong only because (E) is better, and if (E) weren't an answer choice, (B) could be correct. On the GMAT, each answer choice will be correct or incorrect in and of itself. Once you've found a correct answer you will never have to read the rest to make sure there isn't a second one that's even more correct.
_________________

Against my own promise, I wanted to point out at least one question in the OG that does feature two answer choices that both strengthen (and so could both stand alone as correct answers, if not for the other). Question 21 in Critical Reasoning in the 12th edition of the OG. In the explanation for the question, GMAC it says describes a wrong answer choice (E) thusly:

"This statement provides an example of learned bird behavior, and so provide a little additional support for the conclusion, but not as much additional support as does B." (emphasis mine)

There are plenty more where that came from, but even one should be enough to end this debate.
_________________

Hey Dwi,

Eli's explanation on this one is great. Our argument was more about the idea that GMAT wouldn't throw in ANY kind of ambiguity on a strengthen/weaken. Again, you can see my examples if you don't believe it, but the very wording of the questions is setting you up for more than one possible strengthen or weaken. Now I'll admit that it happens surprisingly rarely, but it does happen, as the book states, and my example exemplifies. I feel that Eli was too hard on himself for missing it, as if there were nothing attractive about B. It simply doesn't strengthen in regards to the underlying logic, but does provide a strengthening example. As for Suvorov pointed out, this is how the LSAT works, and LSAT "CR" has a lot in common with GMAT "CR".

Okay. Consider it put to rest. Eli is absolutely right that it's a highly rare occurrence, but I want room to be made for the few times it DOES happen.

-tommy
_________________

Kaplan Dudes,

I already proved it! Read the thread. I showed a question in which GMAC says that one answer choice strengthens, but not as much as the answer. How long does this have to go on? ONCE MORE, it is question #21 in the Critical Reasoning portion of the 12th edition, RELEASED BY GMAC.

-tommy
_________________

Okay Kaplan,

Question #35 also cites an answer choice, "This information is sufficient to justify a little doubt about the conclusion-but not at all specific enough to undermine the argument's conclusion as much as does (B).

As well as the one I already cited, in addition to the Chicago question, which I still think reveals two answer choices that strengthen (Profit = Revenue - Costs...if Revenue goes up OR if Costs go down, possibility of profit is strengthened), proves that this does occasionally happen.

Here's where we agree: CR is not subjective. There is always one correct answer choice. However, sometimes certain answer choices will strengthen some of the premises that support the main conclusion, leading to a bit of overall strengthening. This does not mean that these are the answers, or that there should even be confusion. However, that was the trap that Eli fell into when he first answered this question incorrectly, so I think it's important to note it as a trap. It is very possible that with just a bit of logical inference, multiple answer choices can be described as possible strengtheners. Only one answer choice will get at the heart of the conclusion and really strengthen that, without add-on assumptions.

Fair enough?

-tommy
_________________

Definitely a mistake on my part; I found a 'right' answer, and then tried to eliminate the other.

I dropped out of this thread in hopes of keeping things peaceful, since I'm fairly confident a problem like the one in the OP won't make it into anyone's Test Day. But thanks you, Testluv for making my point about right and wrong answers a little bit clearer than I was able to! What I wasn't clearly explaining is that while incorrect answers may in some loose sense have a vague, theoretical impact on the author's assumption, the GMAT will have four wrong answers that are wrong for a specific reason--and that's not the case for the original problem here.

Incidentally, the OG is a wonderful source for problems, but NOT for explanations. Tommy, the problem you cite did explain that the answer doesn't 'undermine the conclusion as much', but the answer choice will still have a categorical flaw; not being strong enough is one, but not the only, reason to eliminate it. Take a look at the problem and explanation on page 83 of the 12th edition, a strengthen/weaken question, to see why I am hesitant to take OG explanations at face value: The statement that would strengthen one hypothesis and weaken the other is correctly identified, but the explanation misidentifies which hypothesis is strengthened and which is weakened.
_________________