Last visit was: 12 Aug 2024, 03:44 It is currently 12 Aug 2024, 03:44
Toolkit
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# Fast food chains constantly face the problem of low employee retention

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94863
Own Kudos [?]: 648906 [11]
Given Kudos: 86922
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Posts: 6047
Own Kudos [?]: 4786 [1]
Given Kudos: 463
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Intern
Joined: 22 Oct 2023
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 69
Intern
Joined: 10 Dec 2023
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [1]
Given Kudos: 82
Location: Egypt
Re: Fast food chains constantly face the problem of low employee retention [#permalink]
Can you explain why not C ?
The first is clearly an objection raised to a proposed solution (The companies have come up with the solution of hiring retired people); the second is evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of that objection.
Intern
Joined: 22 Jun 2023
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Fast food chains constantly face the problem of low employee retention [#permalink]
­A. The first is a consideration raised to support a conclusion, which is disputed in the argument; the second is a fact that goes against the intermediate conclusion of the argument. -> The second doesn’t necessarily directly go against the intermediate conclusion. Moreover the intermediate conclusion is not exaclty disputed in the argument, instead an alternate conclusion is presented. (It may happen that the customers favouring elderly people serving them still might not outweigh the employee attrition.) Close answer tbh.

B. The first is evidence used to support a conclusion that goes against the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a fact that the argument seeks to explain. -> Even if we consider that the first part is somewhat right, the second part looks incorrect. The argument doesn’t try to explain the highlighted part. Instead it tries to explain the main conclusion: "their employment is likely to become an industry-wide feature."

C. The first is an objection raised to a proposed solution; the second is evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of that objection. -> The second does not cast doubt on the highlighted part in the first.

D. The first is a circumstance cited to support a conclusion; the second is a consideration that goes in favor of a position not supported by that conclusion. -> Correct! The second supports position which is not supported by the former conclusion (which states that the new move of employing older people will not be beneficial). Here take a note that the second part doesn’t attack the intermediate conclusion directly. Instead it just supports a different position.

E. The first is a judgment that supports the main conclusion drawn by the author; the second is a claim that supports the intermediate conclusion. -> The first is not the main conclusion. The main conclusion is: "their employment is likely to become an industry-wide feature."­
Fast food chains constantly face the problem of low employee retention [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7017 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts