Consultant: Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of

Question

Consultant:  Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right.  Since we have established that there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs, we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence. Rather, it is likely that  complex repairs require a level of focused attention that the company's mechanics apply consistently only to repair jobs that have not been done right on the first try.

In the consultant's reasoning, the two portions in  boldface  play which of the following roles?

A. The first is the consultant's main conclusion; the second provides evidence in support of that main conclusion.

B. The first is evidence that serves as the basis for rejecting one explanation of a certain finding; the second is the consultant's own explanation of that finding.

C. The first is a claim whose truth is at issue in the reasoning; the second provides evidence to show that the claim is true.

D. The first presents a contrast whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is the consultant's explanation of that contrast.

E. The first presents a contrast whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the consultant's explanation of that contrast.

CR65030.02

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

To help us when we get to the answer choices, let's walk through what the consultant says, step by step.

Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right.

Here, the consultant introduces a discrepancy. Apparently, a "significant number" of repair jobs are not done correctly the first time. However, they are "invariably done right" on the second attempt. Why is this the case? The rest of the passage explores possible reasons for this discrepancy.

Since we have established that there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs, we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence.

In this piece of the passage, the consultant eliminates a possible explanation for the differing success rates. It's not that crappy mechanics mess up on the first attempt and then great mechanics fix it on the second attempt.

Rather, it is likely that  complex repairs require a level of focused attention that the company's mechanics apply consistently only to repair jobs that have not been done right on the first try.

Finally, the consultant gives us his/her own view about why there is a difference in repair rate success in Ace Repairs. He/she thinks that the mechanics pay more attention to jobs that have to be redone, which explains why the second attempt is so much more successful than the first attempt.

In this question, we're trying to determine which answer choice best describes the role the boldface portions play. Understanding the structure of the passage in the way outlined above should make it easier for us to work through the answer choices. 
 
The first boldface portion describes the situation the consultant is trying to explain, it is not their main conclusion.

So (A) is out.

The first boldface portion is the finding the consultant is trying to explain. It isn't providing evidence to serve as the basis for rejecting one explanation -- that comes in the second, non-boldface sentence of the passage.

(B) is out.

The truth of the first boldface is not "at issue" -- it is presented as a fact that is definitely true. The consultant then attempts to explain  why  it is true.

The second boldface is the consultant's explanation for  why  the discrepancy occurs, not evidence  that  the discrepancy occurs.

For these reasons, we can cross (C) out.

This looks good -- the first section  does  describe the striking difference between two scenarios and contrasts them against each other. The second portion  does  provide the consultant's explanation for the situation introduced in the first portion.

Let's keep (D).

The first part of (E) is the same as (D), so that bit is fine.

However, the second boldface portion  is  the consultant's explanation of the contrast -- so, it's not used to  challenge  the consultant's explanation.

This means we can rule out (E), leaving us with (D) as our winner.

unraveled · Answer

Consultant:  Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right.  Since we have established that there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs, we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence. Rather, it is likely that  complex repairs require a level of focused attention that the company's mechanics apply consistently only to repair jobs that have not been done right on the first try.

In the consultant's reasoning, the two portions in  boldface  play which of the following roles?

Passage Map:  Chronologically, it looks like - 
Since we have established that there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs, -  A reasoning to make a claim. It is established that mechanics who do initial repairs and mechanics who redo unsatisfactory jobs are equally capable to do their job.

we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence. -  This is the claim, based on previous reasoning, that mechanics' lack of competence is not the reason behind mistakes in initial repairs. This is the main conclusion.
 
 Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right.  -  BF1: Since we have a few assumptions previously established, this is paradoxical finding that is author tries to resolve in the passage ahead.

Rather, it is likely that  complex repairs require a level of focused attention that the company's mechanics apply consistently only to repair jobs that have not been done right on the first try.  -  The keyword 'rather' suggests that author takes a turn to explain the issue at hand. 'it is likely' suggests that whatever comes next is the possible reasoning given by author. Here author clears the ambiguity as presented in BF1 by giving a alternative explanation as why was that so.

A. The first is the consultant's main conclusion; the second provides evidence in support of that main conclusion. - WRONG. An easy elimination since both parts are incorrect. Neither BF1 is main conclusion, nor BF2 is 'evidence'.

B. The first is evidence that serves as the basis for rejecting one explanation of a certain finding; the second is the consultant's own explanation of that finding. - WRONG. First part is wrong since BF1 is neither an 'evidence' nor it serves as the 'basis' to reject anything. Second part is correct - BF2 is consultant's explanation.

C. The first is a claim whose truth is at issue in the reasoning; the second provides evidence to show that the claim is true. - WRONG. First part is wrong to say that BF1 is a 'claim', neither it's the issue of its truthfulness - finding its truthfulness may result in either way, it may be true or may not be. Second part is wrong to say that BF2 acts as an 'evidence' and also wrong in saying what BF2 does.

D. The first presents a contrast whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is the consultant's explanation of that contrast. - CORRECT. First part is correct. If we follow the chronology of passage we find that BF1 present an opposite(to assumption) finding which is an issue at hand. Second part is also correct for BF2 is consultant's explanation.

E. The first presents a contrast whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the consultant's explanation of that contrast. - WRONG. First part is correct about BF1. Second part is wrong for neither BF2 is an 'evidence' nor it challenges anything at all in the passage.

Answer D.

itspC · Answer

Lets take the red colored words in the above to eliminate options : A) its not main conclusion B) it is not basis for finding.. (it is actually the fact/finding using which argument is based) C)This is a stated fact and its truth is not at issue D) but in 1st BF --> contrast-->true and its explanation is at issue-->true E)1st BF-->true but 2nd BF: is not "been used to challenge" Hence OA:D Pls. HIT KUDOS

(need few kudos for needs

)

jayarora · Answer

BF1: Fact or evidence that is not disputed in the argument.
BF2: Alternate explanation (in line with the main conclusion)
Main conclusion: we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence.

Only choice D fits in. B is incorrect because the BF1 is not used as a basis to reject an explanation. It is the first part of the second sentence 'Since...'

NiftyNiffler · Answer

Consultant:  Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right.  Since we have established that there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs, we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence. Rather, it is likely that  complex repairs require a level of focused attention that the company's mechanics apply consistently only to repair jobs that have not been done right on the first try.

BF1: Some premise that consultant uses to provide support for his conclusion
BF2 : Clearly the consultant's main conclusion as it has the indicator word "it is likely that..."

In the consultant's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is the consultant's main conclusion; the second provides evidence in support of that main conclusion.  -- WRONG for reason mentioned above
 
B. The first is evidence that serves as the basis for rejecting one explanation of a certain finding; the second is the consultant's own explanation of that finding.  --  BF1  is not used to reject the finding, the following sentence after  BF1  is. 
 
C. The first is a claim whose truth is at issue in the reasoning; the second provides evidence to show that the claim is true.  -- The second is a conclusion, not an evidence
 
D. The first presents a contrast whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is the consultant's explanation of that contrast.  -- CORRECT, for reasons mentioned above
 
E. The first presents a contrast whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the consultant's explanation of that contrast.  -- Second sentence is not an evidence
 
So, answer is  D

MikeScarn · Answer

Bold Faced Questions  : Identify the  conclusion  first. Then identify the roles of the Bold Faced...

BF1 : The main premise of the passage. There is a paradox: There are a significant number of repairs. But when the repairs are completed, the repairs are done right.
 Conclusion:  "We must  reject  the hypothesis that mistakes made in initial repairs are due to mechanic's lack of competence."
 BF2 : Explanation that supports the Conclusion

BF1 is not the main conclusion.  Eliminate  
 
BF1 is  not  " evidence ." 
BF2  is  the explanation that explains the contrast.

(B) is definitely the 2nd best answer choice. With Bold Faced questions, we need to be  really picky  about the wording in answer choices.
  Eliminate  
 
BF1 is  not  a claim whose truth is at issue. There is a contrast, but the  truth  is not being questioned.
  Eliminate  
 
BF1  is  a contrast. And that contrast is the main premise of the passage.
BF2  is  the explanation that explains the contrast.

BF1  is  a contrast. And that contrast is the main premise of the passage.
BF2 is  not  "evidence." Nor is it evidence to contrast the  consultant's  explanation. Instead, it is literally the consultant's explanation.
  Eliminate

krittapat · Answer

GMATNinja   EMPOWERgmatVerbal   VeritasKarishma   egmat   VeritasPrepHailey  Could you please explain this question? I find the question difficult to understand and construct the structure of the argument in my head.

silverprince · Answer

The first boldface portion outlines a trend that will be discussed further in the argument. The second sentence takes as truth the claim that there is no difference between the mechanics. In the third sentence, the conclusion is stated "we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanic's lack of competence..". The fourth sentence, which includes the second boldface portion, offers an alternative explanation for the trend introduced in the first bold face portion.

To summarise:
1st boldface: outlines a trend that the argument seeks to explain
2nd boldface: offers an alternative explanation for the trend that is outlined in the first boldface portion

(A)  - Incorrect - The first is not the consultants main conclusion nor does the second provide evidence.
 (B)  - Incorrect - The first is not evidence that serves as a basis for rejecting one explanation of a certain finding, but rather it is the finding in itself. The second is the consultant's own explanation
 (C)  - Incorrect - The first does not present a claim whose truth is at issue, the first is outlining a trend. The second is not evidence.
 (D) - Correct  - This matches our expectation. The first contrasts the success of repair jobs that are redone to those that were first done and the second is the alternative explanation offered by the consultant.
 (E)  - Incorrect - The first does presents a contrast whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning, but the second is not evidence that has been used to challenge the consultant's explanation of that contrast. The second is the consultant's explanation itself.

Vishalcv · Answer

Can anybody tell me what "contrast" option D is referring to? Is it the contrast between first try and retry?

egmat · Answer

Yes, the difference in output for the first repair and the re-try of the same is the contrast being referred to.

brianmontanaweb · Answer

Since it's a bolded phrase question, I quickly read through the paragraph to identify the conclusion. The first phrase talks about the same task's first attempt vs the second attempt, nothing special yet. The second bolded phrase is the conclusion and it identifies what the first phrase means to the consultant. So now we know the first phrase relates to the second, and the first phrase is evidence or an explanation.

A, C, and E are eliminated since they don't mention the second phrase as the conclusion.

B is incorrect since the first phrase doesn't reject anything, it provides an explanation for what happened.

D is correct it calls the reasoning out properly, and identifies the second phrase as the conclusion.

kittle · Answer

I was confused why it mentions "contrast". If we look at the word "but" carefully. We will know it is a contrast sentence. Do you agree  GMATNinja

GMATNinja · Answer

The word "contrast" is basically used as a synonym for "discrepancy" in (D): why is it that the same company can screw up a significant number of complex jobs but then redo all of those same jobs without screwing them up the second time?

The hypothesis mentioned is one possible explanation for the discrepancy, and the second BF is another.

I hope that helps!

Kavicogsci · Answer

Hi - Can anyone explain the conclusion in this passage?
Some answers say BF2 is conclusion but it seems an explanation. In that case is - we must reject the hypothesis a conclusion?

Any framework to correctly identify the conclusion?

nikitathegreat · Answer

Consultant:  Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right.  Since we have established that there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs, we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence.  Rather, it is likely that cAce Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right..

I was not able to identify the conclusion in this argument. I thought the first sentence is the main conclusion because the sentence made sense

Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right  because   a significant number of the complex repair jobs it undertakes, but when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right.

GMATNinja   karishma

nikitathegreat · Answer

The first presents a contrast whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is the consultant's explanation of that contrast. 
We are saying that the explanation is at issue in the reasoning because the argument says the following line - we must reject the hypothesis that mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence.
How do we understand that the above line is the main conclusion line??? The consultant states the above line just to eliminate the alternate hypothesis for the finding stated in the first line. The last line gives the actual reason for the discrepancy and I thought the first line states the main conclusion of the argument.

Payal  Tandon @E-GMAT  GMATNinja   karishma

GMATNinja · Answer

Luckily, we don't really need to identify a clear conclusion to answer this one. The only choice mentioning "conclusion" is choice (A), and that choice is clearly wrong, as explained here:  https://gmatclub.com/forum/consultant-ace-repairs-ends-up-having-to-redo-a-significant-number-of-322544.html#p2681358 .

The "we must reject the hypothesis" part certainly is a conclusion (supported by the first half of that sentence), but is that really the heart of the passage?

Sure, you could argue that the actual conclusion is some combination of those two ideas (i.e. something to the effect of: "the contrast can likely be explained by this and not by that"), but there's no need to force a logical conclusion that might not be there. Instead, just zoom out and think about why the author wrote this passage: it's to offer an alternative explanation for the contrast in the first boldface. And that's all you need to answer this question.

Perhaps that's an unsatisfying answer, but hopefully it helps!

madhavbhaskar · Answer

Main confusion was in B and D, my thought and direction:

Looking at B deeper and break in 2 parts:

1. The first is  evidence  that serves as the basis for rejecting one explanation of a  certain finding ; 
 
  evidence : when those repairs are redone, they are invariably done right rejecting on explanation of   "a certain finding  "  
 i.e. rejecting that "mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence".

2. the second is the consultant's own explanation of   that finding  . 
 
 the second is not explaining that"mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence"  
 but is infact explaining why the above is not the case

Maybe the consultant's own explanation of  that finding   evidence  would atleast be in the correct direction. 
Is this chain of thought correct ?

egmat · Answer

madhavbhaskar

Your analysis of option B is actually on the right track!  Let me help clarify the specific point that's causing confusion.

The Key Insight: 
"That finding" in option B refers to the  original phenomenon  that needs explaining:  Why do complex repairs fail initially but succeed when redone?

Understanding the Two Explanations:

Rejected explanation:  Mechanics lack competence (disproven by BF1 - same mechanics do it right the second time) 
  Consultant's explanation (BF2):  Mechanics don't apply enough focused attention the first time, but do apply it to redos

Where Your Thinking Got Tangled: 
You wrote:  "the second is not explaining 'mistakes made in the initial repairs are due to the mechanics' lack of competence' but is in fact explaining why the above is not the case"

Actually, the second boldface  IS  explaining the same core finding - just offering a  different  explanation. Both the rejected theory (incompetence) and the consultant's theory (lack of focused attention) are attempting to explain  the same phenomenon : initial failures followed by successful redos.

Why D is Wrong: 
The first boldface doesn't present a "contrast" - it presents  evidence  (successful redos prove competence exists). A contrast would be comparing two different situations; here we have one observation being used as evidence.

Pattern Recognition: 
When you see "that finding" in answer choices, it refers to the  central phenomenon  the entire argument is trying to explain - not to intermediate conclusions or rejections.

I hope this helps!

Consultant: Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Consultant: Ace Repairs ends up having to redo a significant number of

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards