|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
17 Jun 2024, 10:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
icandy
chetan2u sir : The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification - consultant is justifying why this policy is correct internally and why it is not impactful externally; the second is a consideration the consultant raises (as part of that (justification) isnt the usage of titles/designation for external communication a consideration which is part of the whole justification as to why there should be two ways in which executives should/should not use titles internally/externally. I understand why A is correct but E is just as good - I would still choose E over A as second boldface is not really presenting a drawback to that strategy according to me. It is just stating that externally titles used is will have +ve impact.
12 Jul 2024, 15:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
nikitathegreat
The main issue with (E) concerns BF1.
(E) suggests that the consultant is trying to justify the policy BF1 describes: the policy of shunning the use of corporate titles. The consultant is not trying to justify this policy. He/she actually argues that "corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally", which is essentially the opposite.
He/she also says that corporations should not use these titles internally, but he/she definitely does not support some sort of a "blanket ban" policy described by BF1. He/she argues for their external use. So, on the basis of all of that, we can already eliminate (E).
On a side note, a “consideration” does not always have to be negative -- it can be neutral or positive, too. It is simply something we need to think about when evaluating something else, so it doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation.
I hope that helps!
ChiranjeevSingh
Expert
Tutor
Expert reply
11 Oct 2025, 07:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
Passage Analysis
Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy.
Here the author is a business consultant. The corporations are not using executive titles. Why?
Because the corporations are afraid that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation—pay attention here, it's talking about titles that indicate the position of an individual in the corporation—tend to limit communication both up and down the hierarchy. So the problem is not just one way. The problem of communication happens both ways, so people who are lower in the hierarchy are not able to communicate well with the people higher in the hierarchy and vice versa. So this is the problem with using titles, and that is why the corporations are not using executive titles.
Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however, use of a title can facilitate an executive's dealings with external businesses.
This sentence starts with since, so the first part of the sentence will provide support for the second part. The first part says that an executive who uses a title is given more respect by outsiders. As I read this, I connect it with the context set up by the first statement. I can see that this part is presenting an advantage of using a title, whereas what corporations are doing is shunning titles because there is a disadvantage of using the titles.
And reading this sentence further, I come across the word however. What is this word doing in the middle of this sentence starting with since? A lot of people may get confused here. So let me clarify this. As I said, the since at the beginning indicates the connection between the two parts of the sentence. On the other hand, however is used to indicate the connection that this whole sentence has with the previous sentence. So the word however indicates that this sentence is in contrast to the previous sentence. And this makes sense because the since part has presented an advantage of having titles, whereas the first sentence was about not using titles. So there indeed seems to be a contrast here.
The second part of the sentence says that the use of a title can facilitate an executive's dealings with external businesses. Essentially, a title can be useful while dealing with external businesses. So the second statement is presenting an advantage of using titles, which is in contrast with the first statement.
Clearly, corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally,
The author starts this sentence with the word clearly. The word indicates that the author is presenting his own assessment, his own claim. The sentence says that corporations should adopt a compromise in a way that they should encourage their executives to use their titles externally, but not internally. This makes sense because we have discussed that there is a disadvantage of using titles internally and there is an advantage of using titles externally. So, this is a statement that seems to present the conclusion given the discussion so far.
since even if it is widely known that the corporation's executives use titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.
The since part here indicates that this is presenting support to the previous part, which as we discussed is the author's conclusion. The statement says that the knowledge that the executives use titles outside the organization does not inhibit communication within the organization. Essentially, you can have the advantage without having the disadvantage. This indeed supports the author's conclusion about having that compromise of using titles externally, but not internally, because if you use a title externally, that does not inhibit communication within the organization.
Options Evaluation
(A) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.
Correct. The first part of this option is correct. The first bold face indeed describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem. The problem it has been adopted to avoid is the inhibition of communication within the organization because of the use of titles.
The second part of this option is also correct. The second bold face, by presenting an advantage of using titles, presents a drawback to the strategy of not using titles at all.
(B) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal.
Incorrect. The first part of this option is correct. It is the same as the first part of option A.
The second part of this option is incorrect. Let's first try to understand what it means. It's a long one. It says that the second bold face is a consideration, which just means something to be considered. The second bold face is calling into question the effectiveness of that strategy. So far, this part seems fine; the second bold face is indeed questioning the effectiveness of the strategy.
But then the second part of the option also adds "as a means of achieving that goal." Which goal is it talking about? It says "that goal," which is the goal talked about in the first part of the option: to avoid a certain problem. Okay, so now that we understand the goal is to avoid that problem of communication within the organization, let's try to understand the complete meaning of the second part of the option. It says that the second bold face is saying that the strategy in the first bold face is not really effective to avoid the problem of communication within the organization. Is that correct? That is not correct. The second bold face is nowhere saying that shunning titles will not solve the problem of communication within the organization. The second bold face is just saying that there is an advantage of using titles, so shunning titles may lead to a problem in communicating with external businesses.
(C) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem.
Incorrect. The first part of this option is the same as the first part of option A and is correct.
The second part of this option is incorrect. It says that the second is an idea that the consultant (who is the author here) raises in questioning the significance or how big the problem is. In essence, the second part of this option is saying that the second bold face is stating that the problem of communication within the organization is not that significant. This is not what the second bold face is saying, so this part is incorrect.
(D) The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon.
Incorrect. The first part of this option is incorrect. The first bold face is not really an explanation or a part of an explanation for anything. This is something that corporations are doing to avoid a certain problem.
The second part is also incorrect. The second is not really a phenomenon for which the first is an explanation; rather, the second is an explanation for why the first course of action might be problematic.
(E) The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification; the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that.
Incorrect. The first part of this option is incorrect. It says that the first bold face describes a policy; so far, it is correct. The first can indeed be called a policy. It says the first is a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification. In other words, the first is a policy that has been justified by the author. This is not correct. The author does not justify the first bold face; on the contrary, the author provides a reason to not shun titles.
The second part of this option is also incorrect. It says that the second is a consideration or an idea that the consultant uses as part of the justification. The second is never used as a justification for the first bold face. On the contrary, the second seems to present an idea that goes against the course of action depicted in the first bold face.
Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy.
Here the author is a business consultant. The corporations are not using executive titles. Why?
Because the corporations are afraid that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation—pay attention here, it's talking about titles that indicate the position of an individual in the corporation—tend to limit communication both up and down the hierarchy. So the problem is not just one way. The problem of communication happens both ways, so people who are lower in the hierarchy are not able to communicate well with the people higher in the hierarchy and vice versa. So this is the problem with using titles, and that is why the corporations are not using executive titles.
Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however, use of a title can facilitate an executive's dealings with external businesses.
This sentence starts with since, so the first part of the sentence will provide support for the second part. The first part says that an executive who uses a title is given more respect by outsiders. As I read this, I connect it with the context set up by the first statement. I can see that this part is presenting an advantage of using a title, whereas what corporations are doing is shunning titles because there is a disadvantage of using the titles.
And reading this sentence further, I come across the word however. What is this word doing in the middle of this sentence starting with since? A lot of people may get confused here. So let me clarify this. As I said, the since at the beginning indicates the connection between the two parts of the sentence. On the other hand, however is used to indicate the connection that this whole sentence has with the previous sentence. So the word however indicates that this sentence is in contrast to the previous sentence. And this makes sense because the since part has presented an advantage of having titles, whereas the first sentence was about not using titles. So there indeed seems to be a contrast here.
The second part of the sentence says that the use of a title can facilitate an executive's dealings with external businesses. Essentially, a title can be useful while dealing with external businesses. So the second statement is presenting an advantage of using titles, which is in contrast with the first statement.
Clearly, corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally,
The author starts this sentence with the word clearly. The word indicates that the author is presenting his own assessment, his own claim. The sentence says that corporations should adopt a compromise in a way that they should encourage their executives to use their titles externally, but not internally. This makes sense because we have discussed that there is a disadvantage of using titles internally and there is an advantage of using titles externally. So, this is a statement that seems to present the conclusion given the discussion so far.
since even if it is widely known that the corporation's executives use titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.
The since part here indicates that this is presenting support to the previous part, which as we discussed is the author's conclusion. The statement says that the knowledge that the executives use titles outside the organization does not inhibit communication within the organization. Essentially, you can have the advantage without having the disadvantage. This indeed supports the author's conclusion about having that compromise of using titles externally, but not internally, because if you use a title externally, that does not inhibit communication within the organization.
Options Evaluation
(A) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.
Correct. The first part of this option is correct. The first bold face indeed describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem. The problem it has been adopted to avoid is the inhibition of communication within the organization because of the use of titles.
The second part of this option is also correct. The second bold face, by presenting an advantage of using titles, presents a drawback to the strategy of not using titles at all.
(B) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal.
Incorrect. The first part of this option is correct. It is the same as the first part of option A.
The second part of this option is incorrect. Let's first try to understand what it means. It's a long one. It says that the second bold face is a consideration, which just means something to be considered. The second bold face is calling into question the effectiveness of that strategy. So far, this part seems fine; the second bold face is indeed questioning the effectiveness of the strategy.
But then the second part of the option also adds "as a means of achieving that goal." Which goal is it talking about? It says "that goal," which is the goal talked about in the first part of the option: to avoid a certain problem. Okay, so now that we understand the goal is to avoid that problem of communication within the organization, let's try to understand the complete meaning of the second part of the option. It says that the second bold face is saying that the strategy in the first bold face is not really effective to avoid the problem of communication within the organization. Is that correct? That is not correct. The second bold face is nowhere saying that shunning titles will not solve the problem of communication within the organization. The second bold face is just saying that there is an advantage of using titles, so shunning titles may lead to a problem in communicating with external businesses.
(C) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem.
Incorrect. The first part of this option is the same as the first part of option A and is correct.
The second part of this option is incorrect. It says that the second is an idea that the consultant (who is the author here) raises in questioning the significance or how big the problem is. In essence, the second part of this option is saying that the second bold face is stating that the problem of communication within the organization is not that significant. This is not what the second bold face is saying, so this part is incorrect.
(D) The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon.
Incorrect. The first part of this option is incorrect. The first bold face is not really an explanation or a part of an explanation for anything. This is something that corporations are doing to avoid a certain problem.
The second part is also incorrect. The second is not really a phenomenon for which the first is an explanation; rather, the second is an explanation for why the first course of action might be problematic.
(E) The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification; the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that.
Incorrect. The first part of this option is incorrect. It says that the first bold face describes a policy; so far, it is correct. The first can indeed be called a policy. It says the first is a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification. In other words, the first is a policy that has been justified by the author. This is not correct. The author does not justify the first bold face; on the contrary, the author provides a reason to not shun titles.
The second part of this option is also incorrect. It says that the second is a consideration or an idea that the consultant uses as part of the justification. The second is never used as a justification for the first bold face. On the contrary, the second seems to present an idea that goes against the course of action depicted in the first bold face.
