Extensive profiling of over a thousand managers in the corporate

I think that B does not strengthen the conclusion drawn by researchers because we don't know what the result of these challenges is, does it bring out the competitive nature of the professionals? we don't know.

a more direct face forward option would be C. I picked C (1:26).

I think I did not understand the question completely. Can you please explain all of it?

My understanding:
Researcher’s conclusion: early age causes the likelihood of promotion
the objection to the conclusion: competitiveness causes the likelihood of promotion, but not early age.
To strengthen the objection to the conclusion, we should say competitiveness is the decisive factor. So I think C is the answer.
Where is the OE?

I went for A because we have to strengthen the argument “However, the research's conclusion that attending graduate school at an early age improves one's likelihood of professional rise is not entirely correct.” Which means we’ve to find another reason for the professional rise. So given that those who attended graduate school before the age of 27 performed much better than the rest in quantitative and verbal ability tests, could be seen as a reason as to why these people were acquiring faster promotions than the rest.

Not sure tho!

Posted from my mobile device

Question is asking you to strengthen the objection that was raised against the researcher's claim that professionals who graduate before 27 age have greater chance of professional rise.
To be precise you need to strengthen the point that ' these professional rise because they are competitive ' , choice A enforce this idea by implying that these people perform better than the rest because they are competitive.
have a look at choice D as well . This choice is also a strengthener but indirect . It is implying that the professional who graduate after 27 are less compitive.

Experts' Global Video Explanation:

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB , your help here. Never in life I'll mark A over C

­karishma can you explain this question please?

A can never be right answer. If I have to object the conclusion I can do it in two ways:
1. Put forward something that promotes the notion that it was competitiveness in the guys what made them rose up the ladder.

Or

2. Argue against the fact that age had anything to do with the growth of the guys.

Now option A only says they performed well in some tests. Consider this situation. "If you perform well in VA and QA in GMAT , does it make you competitive in the professional world too?" No. So A can't be an strengthener.


Why I chose B

It's because B implies that if anything younger age was doing to the guys it was creating more difficulty only when they had to compete against the older guys. So younger age could never help them grow professionally. If anything it only acted against them.Thats why it was not due to young age that they rose up the ladder.

I will go for B for sure.

Discussions are welcomed.

Posted from my mobile device

PS31, I don't think (B) could be a correct answer here as it attempts to change what we know (the premise).

We are already told that they obtained faster promotions, so it would not really matter if they 'faced challenges' in competing...

Further, in competing... but what's the competition? Who can do more push-ups or who's, indeed, better at work? We're not told about the nature of the competition.

I chose (C) but also had problems with it, namely I would need to create a story in my mind that the leadership and interpersonal skills levels are directly related to faster promotions and that THE YOUNGER GUYS WOULD HAVE A HIGHER LEVEL IN THE FIRST PLACE. Which I believe could go too far...

I think it creates ground for another objection, however does not directly strengthen the presented.

Then, indeed, (A) would be the only one strengthening the objection directly, however we need to rely on a comparison that competitiveness = stronger performance in ability tests.

"However, the researchers conclusion that attending graduate school at an early age improves ones likelihood of professional rise, is not entirely correct"
"Those who were found to be rapidly climbing the corporate ladder are very competitive individuals and its their competitiveness, which took them to graduate school at early age"

Researchers Argument early grad= professional rise
Objector Argument - competitiveness of very competitive individuals = professional rise.
The main driver is their competitiveness, not their early grad. Early grad is just a consequence of competitiveness.

Strengthen --- it was their competitiveness that equated to rapid professional rise. In order to strengthen you must strengthen the link/assumption.

A- This suggests performance in Quant and Verbal ability test=Competitiveness?
Quite the stretch in logic. Naturally gifted in these areas?

B. - At first glance this may look like it goes against the premise...however you would have to assume greater challenges= did not rise rapidly. BUT the premise is always an undeniable fact and it's a "if true" statement. B would have to blatantly go against the premise and in this case, you can also see it another way....

The fact that the professionals have the advantage of early graduate education, despite the greater challenges faced (statement if true), climbed the corporate ladder rapidly (premise) because, according to the Objector, they were very competitive. Which is a vastly smaller leap than A. Directly strengthens the fact it was their "very competitiveness" nature that led to their rapid rise. I think it's important to note, competing could be shmoozing to your boss, playing the corporate game, learning the business better than others, putting in more time, strategically planning career path, being in the right place at the right time etc. Doesn't really matter what it is. As long as you're trying, you're competing. Can you get successive and rapid promotions without really trying, I guess? Extremely unlikely.

B isn't perfect by any means but its closest so far.

C. This compares grad pools of equal competitiveness and says they gain similar degree of improvement in leadership/interpersonal skills. So the assumption here is that lower competitiveness pools and higher competitiveness pools attained similar skills, respectively within their groups. There was no advantage over the same competitiveness level but different group. So the logical leap is to say that the early grad pool, which according to the argument is very competitive, rose rapidly due to none other than their competitive nature.

Bit of a longer leap than B. You kind of have to assume there isn't any other skills that would lead to rapid rise. Doesn't identify competitiveness as the sole reason for rapid rise. Leaves room for other skills.

D. Same bucket as A. Longer to complete education= less competitive? Stretch. Marginally strengthens it.

E. Opinion statement.


I would pick B.

EG would say A but the solution noted doesn't explain Competitiveness= ability test

Open to discuss.