Following the best project management practices is believed to improve

Experts' Global Video Explanation:

I eliminated E because the issue is wether the team learned the practices or not, and E is focused just in the delay of the project. So there is the possibility that even though the delay was caused by factors that the team has not control over, that they did not learn the practices. (A) focus in the possibility that the team did learn the practices

C. The monthly project deliverables last month were later only by 2 days, an insignificant duration that could not really have impacted project success.


I think, 'later' is a typo. It should be 'late'. That is also how it appears in the official solution.

Sorry, but there is something more that I find amiss here. The answer option (E) is as under:-

E. The delay was because of external dependencies and[b] the project team did not have any control over those factors.[/b]
I guess it is safe to assume that 'the project teams' are the ones that have undergone the training...

Whereas, in the official explanation it is worded differently, as under:-
"Delay in project deliverables is sometimes because of external dependencies that project teams have no control over."
Which project teams? Have these teams undergone the said training?

Not only is it worded differently, but also the option is eliminated in the official explanation based on the word "sometimes" which does not appear in the Question's answer choices.

I have some more queries on this Question, but I guess I 'll have to hold on till there's some clarity on this issue..

Am I missing something?
Bunuel, Pls help.

I am no expert, but here is my understanding of the question:
The conclusion of the argument is that the team did not learn anything from the training and the task is to weaken this argument, therefore we must find a choice that shows that maybe, in spite of the delay, the team still did learn something from the training. E does not provide that effect. It provides a reason why there might have been a delay, but when you compare it to choice A, E falls short. A clearly casts doubt on the conclusion: If the effects of the training only appear after 2 months, how can we say that, after only 1 month, that the team did not learn anything? This is a much stronger choice than E, which does not,in my opinion, impact the argument.

Hope this helps!

This is Totally Wrong. Think this way..
The argument says that it's been a month since the training was given ( "last month" ). Clearly one month might be too short, but suppose they finished the training on January 1st and then they taking the actual project on February 28, then its last month but actually two months time. Then obviously two months is sufficient, as we don't know what does it mean by the word "FEW", whether it is one, two, three or 12 months timeline.

Therefore answer is E

Think this way Bunuel
The argument says that it's been a month since the training was given ( "last month" ). Clearly one month might be too short, but suppose they finished the training on January 1st and then they taking the actual project on February 28, then its last month but actually two months time. Then obviously two months is sufficient, as we don't know what does it mean by the word "FEW", whether it is one, two, three or 12 months timeline.

Therefore answer is E

The issue with your reasoning is that there is no indication that the periods are set up in the way you said, one could make the exact opposite assumption and the reasoning would not hold.

Moreover, the core of the argument is "the project team failed to learn from training". Even if they had a delay, which was not controllable, why would this show that they actually learned from training? There is no reason to believe that. It is entirely possible that there was a delay, which was caused by factors that the team could not control, and that the team did not learn from the training. Statement A undermines the assumption that the argument is making - the argument is assuming that because there was a delay, the team did not learn from the project. However, if learning from the project requires a few months time, but the project was undertaken a month later, then clearly that assumption is undermined. E only shows the nature of the delay (that it was something external) but this does not help to determine if the team learned or not. A shows that clearly, there is still a good chance that the team learned in spite of the delay.