GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Dec 2018, 07:57

TODAY:

MIT Sloan R1 Decisions - Join MIT Chat for Live Updates | Chat with UCLA Anderson Adcom @9am PT | Chat with Yale SOM R1 Admit 10am PT


Close

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
Your Progress

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Happy Christmas 20% Sale! Math Revolution All-In-One Products!

     December 20, 2018

     December 20, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    This is the most inexpensive and attractive price in the market. Get the course now!
  • Key Strategies to Master GMAT SC

     December 22, 2018

     December 22, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Attend this webinar to learn how to leverage Meaning and Logic to solve the most challenging Sentence Correction Questions.

In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: 1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 496
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: UFL (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 2: 590 Q35 V35
GMAT 3: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 4: 610 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.45
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 07 Nov 2013, 19:15
6
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (01:43) correct 35% (01:39) wrong based on 798 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

New project from GMAT Club! Click here

In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off 40% of its attorneys and hire paralegal contractors as needed to replace them. In this way, the firm believes, it can avoid paying attorneys during slower periods and simply ramp up with contractors when the workload requires it.

Which of the following, if true, would most increase the plan’s likelihood of achieving its objective?

A. None of the firm’s existing clients would leave the firm to work with a laid-off attorney.

B. Most of the attorneys to be laid off are among the lowest-performing attorneys on the firm’s roster.

C. Paralegals can perform most of the functions of the attorneys that will be laid off.

D. For any given amount of legal work, the cost of paralegal contractors does not exceed that of full-time attorneys.

E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.


oe to follow

Originally posted by avohden on 04 Nov 2013, 09:36.
Last edited by avohden on 07 Nov 2013, 19:15, edited 2 times in total.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1016
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2013, 10:28
10
1
Objective: reduce expenses,
Fact: lay off 40% of its attorneys and hire paralegal contractors as needed to replace them.
Fact: In this way, the firm believes, it can avoid paying attorneys during slower periods and simply ramp up with contractors when the workload requires it.

Which of the following, if true, would most increase the plan’s likelihood of achieving its objective?

A. None of the firm’s existing clients would leave the firm to work with a laid-off attorney.
Wrong. A only affect the firm's REVENUE, not expense. Hence, A is wrong.

B. Most of the attorneys to be laid off are among the lowest-performing attorneys on the firm’s roster.
Wrong. Out of scope. Nothing about attorneys' performance.

C. Paralegals can perform most of the functions of the attorneys that will be laid off.
Wrong. TEMPTING but wrong. Does NOT affect objective - reduce expenses - directly. For example, if paralegals can do most of function but charge higher rates --> The objective fails.

D. For any given amount of legal work, the cost of paralegal contractors does not exceed that of full-time attorneys.
Correct. D confirms that the plan will reduce expenses. Hence, D is correct.

E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.
Wrong. E does not compare the cost of hiring paralegal with that of hiring full-time attorney. E does not help anything and is wrong.

Further explanation for E.
Even when we know the demand will decrease, we still do not have enough information to conclude that the lay-off would be beneficial. Why? Because we don't know the saving from laying off 40% attorney is LARGER / SMALLER than the income loss from lower demand.

Let see an example:
Before: Demand = 100 cases, the number of attorney = 20 ==> 5 cases per attorney.
After: Demand = 90 cases (fewer than 100), the number of attorney = 12 (lay off 40% x 20 = 8 attorney) ==> 7.5 cases/attorney
Clearly, the firm HAS TO hire more paralegals ==> The costs of hiring paralegals occur ==> The firm CAN'T achieve its goal if the rate/hour of paralegal is greater than that of full time attorney.


Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

General Discussion
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 93
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT Date: 11-06-2013
WE: Programming (Telecommunications)
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2013, 02:53
pqhai wrote:
E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.
Wrong. E does not compare the cost of hiring paralegal with that of hiring full-time attorney. E does not help anything and is wrong.


If demand for legal services remain consistently lower for the next few years, then laying off full-time attorneys would be beneficial. Because during this period the firm don't have to pay to full-time attorneys and when this low-demand period passes by, the firm can again hire paralegal contractors to fulfill the demand. And in this way the firm may be able to achieve a reduction in expense.

Whats wrong in my understanding? :roll:
_________________

Do not forget to hit the Kudos button on your left if you find my post helpful 8-)

Collection of some good questions on Number System

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1016
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2013, 10:18
TirthankarP wrote:
pqhai wrote:
E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.
Wrong. E does not compare the cost of hiring paralegal with that of hiring full-time attorney. E does not help anything and is wrong.


If demand for legal services remain consistently lower for the next few years, then laying off full-time attorneys would be beneficial. Because during this period the firm don't have to pay to full-time attorneys and when this low-demand period passes by, the firm can again hire paralegal contractors to fulfill the demand. And in this way the firm may be able to achieve a reduction in expense.

Whats wrong in my understanding? :roll:


Hello TirthankarP

Great question. I'm glad to help. :)

Option E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.

Even when we know the demand will decrease, we still do not have enough information to conclude that the lay-off would be beneficial. Why? Because we don't know the saving from laying off 40% attorney is LARGER / SMALLER than the income loss from lower demand.

Let see an example:
Before: Demand = 100 cases, the number of attorney = 20 ==> 5 cases per attorney.
After: Demand = 90 cases (fewer than 100), the number of attorney = 12 (lay off 40% x 20 = 8 attorney) ==> 7.5 cases/attorney

Clearly, the firm HAS TO hire more paralegals ==> The costs of hiring paralegals occur ==> The firm CAN'T achieve its goal if the rate/hour of paralegal is greater than that of full time attorney.

Hope it's clear.

Pqhai.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: 1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 496
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: UFL (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 2: 590 Q35 V35
GMAT 3: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 4: 610 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.45
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2013, 10:32
1
Official Explanation

Answer D
- In this “strengthen the plan” question, the most important thing is to note the objective, which is “to reduce expenses”. Because of that specific goal, items that might increase revenues or profitability and therefore seem “good for the firm” do not actually achieve the objective.

Accordingly, choices like A, B, and C are incorrect – while they all provide good value for the firm, none of them assist in directly reducing costs. Choice D is correct in that it removes a slight flaw in the plan – the plan doesn’t explicitly state that the contracted paralegals will actually be cheaper than the full-time attorneys. D removes a potential weakness, and is therefore correct.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 51
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2014, 20:17
avohden wrote:
New project from GMAT Club! Click here

In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off 40% of its attorneys and hire paralegal contractors as needed to replace them. In this way, the firm believes, it can avoid paying attorneys during slower periods and simply ramp up with contractors when the workload requires it.

Which of the following, if true, would most increase the plan’s likelihood of achieving its objective?

A. None of the firm’s existing clients would leave the firm to work with a laid-off attorney.

B. Most of the attorneys to be laid off are among the lowest-performing attorneys on the firm’s roster.

C. Paralegals can perform most of the functions of the attorneys that will be laid off.

D. For any given amount of legal work, the cost of paralegal contractors does not exceed that of full-time attorneys.

E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.


oe to follow

D looks like more of a assumption than a strenghtener.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 285
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Apr 2014, 03:42
abid1986 wrote:
avohden wrote:
New project from GMAT Club! Click here

In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off 40% of its attorneys and hire paralegal contractors as needed to replace them. In this way, the firm believes, it can avoid paying attorneys during slower periods and simply ramp up with contractors when the workload requires it.

Which of the following, if true, would most increase the plan’s likelihood of achieving its objective?

A. None of the firm’s existing clients would leave the firm to work with a laid-off attorney.

B. Most of the attorneys to be laid off are among the lowest-performing attorneys on the firm’s roster.

C. Paralegals can perform most of the functions of the attorneys that will be laid off.

D. For any given amount of legal work, the cost of paralegal contractors does not exceed that of full-time attorneys.

E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.


oe to follow

D looks like more of a assumption than a strenghtener.



NOTE - all assumptions are also included in strengthners......
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Dec 2014
Posts: 19
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2015, 05:57
It is D as our conclusion is that we can save money. As C mentions saving money, C is right
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2013
Posts: 40
GMAT ToolKit User
In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2015, 23:21
avohden wrote:
New project from GMAT Club! Click here

In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off 40% of its attorneys and hire paralegal contractors as needed to replace them. In this way, the firm believes, it can avoid paying attorneys during slower periods and simply ramp up with contractors when the workload requires it.

Which of the following, if true, would most increase the plan’s likelihood of achieving its objective?

A. None of the firm’s existing clients would leave the firm to work with a laid-off attorney.

B. Most of the attorneys to be laid off are among the lowest-performing attorneys on the firm’s roster.

C. Paralegals can perform most of the functions of the attorneys that will be laid off.

D. For any given amount of legal work, the cost of paralegal contractors does not exceed that of full-time attorneys.

E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.


oe to follow


I have a problem with option D. It has a major flaw. Even if the cost of hiring paralegals for a given amount of work exceeds the cost of full time attorneys the plan might still work because of the cost of paying full time attorneys during slow periods i.e. with less or no work (when you don't have to pay contractors). Uneven demand can actually save money through contractors. That's how the entire damn outsourcing industry works and while this is outside knowledge, it's quite easy to see that without even this knowledge it can be figured out from the question - especially with the phrase "for a given amount of work". C in that case becomes a compelling answer, the plan won't work if you can't hire contractors to do the same stuff that full time attorneys do. It's like hiring janitors to replace attorneys because they are cheaper for a given amount of work.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: folding sleeves up
Joined: 26 Apr 2013
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 530 Q39 V23
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V26
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Computer Hardware)
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2016, 01:33
rajarshee wrote:
avohden wrote:
New project from GMAT Club! Click here

In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off 40% of its attorneys and hire paralegal contractors as needed to replace them. In this way, the firm believes, it can avoid paying attorneys during slower periods and simply ramp up with contractors when the workload requires it.

Which of the following, if true, would most increase the plan’s likelihood of achieving its objective?

A. None of the firm’s existing clients would leave the firm to work with a laid-off attorney.

B. Most of the attorneys to be laid off are among the lowest-performing attorneys on the firm’s roster.

C. Paralegals can perform most of the functions of the attorneys that will be laid off.

D. For any given amount of legal work, the cost of paralegal contractors does not exceed that of full-time attorneys.

E. The firm’s outlook for the next few years suggests that demand for legal services will remain consistently lower than it has for the previous five years.


oe to follow


I have a problem with option D. It has a major flaw. Even if the cost of hiring paralegals for a given amount of work exceeds the cost of full time attorneys the plan might still work because of the cost of paying full time attorneys during slow periods i.e. with less or no work (when you don't have to pay contractors). Uneven demand can actually save money through contractors. That's how the entire damn outsourcing industry works and while this is outside knowledge, it's quite easy to see that without even this knowledge it can be figured out from the question - especially with the phrase "for a given amount of work". C in that case becomes a compelling answer, the plan won't work if you can't hire contractors to do the same stuff that full time attorneys do. It's like hiring janitors to replace attorneys because they are cheaper for a given amount of work.



during slow economy :
regular attorney : NO work but money is given
Contract : No work, No Money

when work is there
Regular attorney pay > Contract pay

Adding both
========================
regular attorney
Money during no work + Regular pay when work is there >> just contract pay which is less than regular attorney

Note: The most import to note in the option D is "For any given amount of legal work"

=========================

Saved money!!!
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1633
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Feb 2018, 10:42
I am wondering whether new projects are still being made. This is a good question with a common pattern. Test takers can choose D as the answer without looking at other option choices.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off &nbs [#permalink] 23 Feb 2018, 10:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In an effort to reduce expenses, a law firm plans to lay off

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.