HOT Competition 2 Sep/8AM: Although the restructuring mandated by our

Conclusion: The restructuring was the ONLY way to avoid bankrupty.
Reasoning: None of the other board members suggested any viable alternative course.

A. The consequences of the restructuring were actually worse for the company than the fallout of a bankruptcy filing would have been.
That's besides the point. The point is whether bankruptcy could be avoided or not. Option A doesn't cast any doubt on that.


This actually strengthens the argument. If there were no alternative courses which were NOT CONSIDERED, it means all possible courses were considered. And then this restructuring was picked.


Legality isn't under question here. Whether it was the only method (legal or illegal) to prevent bankruptcy is the question. This choice does nothing to weaken the argument.


This is the right answer. Consider this: there may have been some other ways which board members had come up with, but simply didn't recommend. This means that the restructuring DONE wasn't necessarily the ONLY way. (now of course we can't be certain those alternatives would have worked, but this definitely casts doubts on the conclusion drawn from the fact that no one offered an alternative.


We aren't concerned with the serious consequences of restructuring. We want to know if bankrupty could have been prevented. This choices doesn't talk anything about that. So eliminate.

Our best weakener is option D (answer)

Posted from my mobile device

We are asked to cast doubt on the CONCLUSION of the argument, not on the efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy, superiority, merits, or legitimacy of CEO’s move. So, let’s first find that conclusion.

Conclusion: it was the ONLY way... – CEO’s move was the ONLY way to avoid bankruptcy.

Reasons: ...because otherwise insolvency would arise, and because no board member offered an alternative.

Possible doubts: was it indeed the ONLY way? Could insolvency be circumvented? What if board members had an alternative but for some reason could not offer it?

With these in mind let’s analyze answer choices:


A. The consequences of the restructuring were actually worse for the company than the fallout of a bankruptcy filing would have been.

An alluring trap: the question to ask ourselves is whether this choice indeed casts any doubt on the conclusion, or whether it implies that CEO’s move was NOT the only way. This choice fails to target the conclusion; instead, it judges the outcome of the move. Unfortunately, we are barely interested in how successful was his plan. All we want to clarify is – was it the only? Wrong choice.


B. There were no alternative courses of action that the company’s entire board failed to consider.

If double negation is stripped off, then we have: “company’s board considered ALL alternative courses of action”. This one seems to strengthen rather than weaken. If all alternatives were scrutinized and in the end CEO’s idea was chosen, then most probably CEO’s idea was the only way to avoid bankruptcy.


C. Some of the actions taken and/or ordered by the CEO during the restructuring were in fact illegal.

Once again, all what we care about is the conclusion that claims “it was the only way”. So, our question is “was it the only?”, not “was it legal?”
This choice fails to target the conclusion and instead, as does A, focuses on other features of CEO’s move. Wong choice.


D. Board members of many companies will avoid offering difficult proposals that may be contrary to those recommended by the CEO.

Bingo, this one is the sole choice that targets our conclusion. This fact alone implies that it’s most likely to be true. Indeed, the choice claims that there may have been some alternatives, but they were not offered. What follows is that CEO’s idea was NOT the only way, and there were other not offered alternatives. So, there was more than one way to avoid bankruptcy. Correct choice.


E. If the company had taken action sooner, the most serious consequences of restructuring would have been avoided.

This choice is not going to say that CEO’s move was NOT the only way. It seems to assume that CEO’s idea was the only way that should have been realized sooner. This choice is not weakener, but a weak strengthener. Wrong choice.


Hence D

Posted from my mobile device

IMO D

Argument:
Conclusion: Restructuring mandated by our CEO was only the way for the company to avoid bankruptcy, though it had a number of painful repercussions for our company.
Addt. Information: none of the other members of the board proposed any viable alternative course of action.


Required: Weaken the Conclusion i.e Restructuring was not the only way to avoid bankruptcy.

A. The consequences of the restructuring were actually worse for the company than the fallout of a bankruptcy filing would have been. - Incorrect -
Conclusion is about restructuring being the only way to avoid bankruptcy, the consequences of restructuring Vs filling bankruptcy doesnot affect the conclusion stating Restructuring to be the only way to avoid bankruptcy.

B. There were no alternative courses of action that the company’s entire board failed to consider. - Incorrect -
According to this option, if the company board considered all possible alternate course of action but still went on with the CEO's proposal of restructuring, then that suggest that CEO's proposal was the only viable option option. This supports the conclusion.

C. Some of the actions taken and/or ordered by the CEO during the restructuring were in fact illegal. - Incorrect -
Legality of action is no where a part of argument, neither affect the conclusion. So long that action is the only possible action, the conclusion holds true. It neither support nor weaken the conclusion.

D. Board members of many companies will avoid offering difficult proposals that may be contrary to those recommended by the CEO. Correct
This option raises doubt that restructuring was the only viable way to avoid bankruptcy. If board members didn't offer proposal that would have been opposite to CEO's & go with CEO's proposal then that raises the possibility that there might had been a better proposal available but they didn't put forward because Board members didn't want to go against CEO. This weakens the conclusion that Restructuring was the only Viable course of action.

E. If the company had taken action sooner, the most serious consequences of restructuring would have been avoided. - Incorrect -
What would have been the scenario is some action would have been taken earlier doesn't justify or oppose the credibility/ importance of an action taken later. This option states a hypothetical case & consequence under that. This doesn't help support/oppose the conclusion i.e restructuring being the only Viable way to avoid bankruptcy at later time.

Posted from my mobile device

Although the restructuring mandated by our CEO has had a number of painful repercussions for our company, it was only the way for the company to avoid bankruptcy. Doing nothing would surely have led to insolvency, and none of the other members of the board proposed any viable alternative course of action.

Premise : Doing nothing would surely have led to insolvency, and none of the other members of the board proposed any viable alternative course of action.

Company representative in the board meeting said: If we do nothing our company will go Bankrupt and you guys are not giving any viable solution.

Premise : Although the restructuring mandated by our CEO has had a number of painful repercussions for our company,

Restructuring the company will hurt many people and the company

Conclusion : it was only the way for the company to avoid bankruptcy.

But this is the ONLY solution to avoid bankruptcy.

Assumption: If there are any other ways but CEO did not listen. He is very adamant in his decision.



Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt (Weaken) on the conclusion drawn above?


A. The consequences of the restructuring were actually worse for the company than the fallout of a bankruptcy filing would have been.
We want to know if there is any other solution to stop bankruptcy. We know that consequences will be there but this does not weaken our conclusion

B. There were no alternative courses of action that the company’s entire board failed to consider.

There is no alternate solution. Hmmm...What to do now...We have to accept the conclusion. But we need to weaken the argument. Incorrect

C. Some of the actions taken and/or ordered by the CEO during the restructuring were in fact illegal. Yah yah yah... I know that its illegal. Who cares? Does not weaken our conclusion Incorrect

D. Board members of many companies will avoid offering difficult proposals that may be contrary to those recommended by the CEO.
Many have solutions but they are avoiding it due to CEO adamant nature....I think this will weaken the conclusion. Correct

E. If the company had taken action sooner, the most serious consequences of restructuring would have been avoided. Why we are talking about past. We need to talk in present. Is there any other solution apart from restructuring. NO. Incorrect Answer

Posted from my mobile device

The answer is D.

• Question type: Weaken

• Conclusion: It was only the way for the company to avoid bankruptcy.
• Premise:

1. The restructuring was the CEO’s idea.
2. The restructuring has had a number of negative consequences for the company.
3. Doing nothing would have led the company to bankruptcy.
4. The members if the board did not propose any other idea.

-> We don’t know this. The key point is that the company wanted to avoid the bankruptcy. Out of scope.


-> This repeats the premise above, and strengthens the argument.


-> Out of scope.


-> If this is true, the restructuring wasn’t the only the way for the company to avoid bankruptcy.
-> Correct.


-> Out of scope.

Posted from my mobile device

Conclusion: Restructuring was the only way for the company to avoid bankruptcy.

Pre-thinking: If we can get new information that suggests there were in fact other ways for the company to avoid bankruptcy then author’s conclusion would be weakened. Any option providing information along these lines would cast the most doubt on the conclusion.

A. The consequences of the restructuring were actually worse for the company than the fallout of a bankruptcy filing would have been.

This option talks about an outcome that took place once restructuring was already chosen as a way to avoid bankruptcy. It does not give us any information to cast a doubt that there was in fact another way other than choosing restructuring process to avoid bankruptcy.

REJECT

B. There were no alternative courses of action that the company’s entire board failed to consider.

This option actually strengthens the conclusion instead of casting a doubt on it. By eliminating a possibility of an alternative solution, it lends credibility to the action taken by CEO to go for restructuring.

REJECT

C. Some of the actions taken and/or ordered by the CEO during the restructuring were in fact illegal.

This option also talks about actions taken by the CEO during restructuring i.e. when the decision to choose restructuring as a way to avoid bankruptcy was already made. It does not give us any information to cast a doubt that there was in fact another way other than choosing restructuring process to avoid bankruptcy.

REJECT

D. Board members of many companies will avoid offering difficult proposals that may be contrary to those recommended by the CEO.

If our company is among such companies, then it creates a possibility that the board members of our company probably shied away from offering an alternative proposal to avoid bankruptcy. Therefore, there could in fact have been an alternative way to avoid bankruptcy other than choosing the painful restructuring process.

This option clearly casts a doubt on the conclusion.

CORRECT

E. If the company had taken action sooner, the most serious consequences of restructuring would have been avoided.

This option talks about how restructuring process could have been made less painful or detrimental to the company had the action been taken sooner. However, does not give us any information to cast a doubt that there was in fact another way other than choosing restructuring process to avoid bankruptcy.

REJECT

Posted from my mobile device

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.