Manager: Accounting and Billing are located right next to each other a

IMO the answer should be C.
A: Tells us nothing about amount of supplies. Indirectly might tell us Accounting uses more. That goes against what we need to prove.
B: Past behaviour might not hold up in the present.
C: If the work of Billing NOW requires wider range of clerical supplies than it did in the past, it explains why Billing uses more clerical supplies.
D: Doesn't tell us anything about change in clerical supply consumption patterns
E: Members of Accounting might take their clerical supplies from Billing Cabinet. There is no information to say that Billing will be charged for all supplies taken from their cabinet.

I chose C.
I eliminated E because members if the accounting department are pilfering objects from the billing department. This does not mean that charging the billing department is a waste since both departments need these objects to function. However, the question is if the billing department is wasting supplies.

Option C states that the supplies that they are using are required, thus the expenditures are not wasteful.

Seems like a rather difficult choice to make between those two.
I interpreted it more in the following way:
C) says that they required a smaller variety in the past, but now require more. Seems okay as support, although there still might be a slim chance of some supplies being wasted due to normal usage.
E) goes a step further in revealing, that the clerical supplies of Billing are also used for the Accounting department. The potential amount of wasted supplies should therefore be even smaller. And this supports better the argument.

DinoPen

C is comparing the past but manager is talking about present spending. We do not knowing anything about past

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

How could the facts presented by the Manager be reconciled with the Head of Billing's claim that Billing is not wasting supplies? The Manager says that Accounting and Billing are adjacent departments doing similar work, yet Billing spends much more on clerical supplies than Accounting does. Even given these facts, there are various observations that could justify the Head of Billing's claim that Billing is not wasting supplies; for example, Billing may need more supplies than Accounting because it is a larger department, or Accounting may have found a less expensive source of supplies than Billing has found.

A This would justify greater expenditures for supplies by Accounting than by Billing, not vice versa.
B This would be consistent with the hypothesis that Billing has started wasting supplies profusely within the past two years whereas Accounting has not.
C Since Accounting and Billing currently do similar work, they presumably require a similar variety of supplies. Furthermore, a wider variety of supplies wouldn't necessarily cost any more than a narrower variety.
D This would provide a reason for both departments' clerical supply expenditures to have declined, not for Billing's expenditures to greatly exceed Accounting's.
E Correct. This suggests that Accounting is using a lot of the clerical supplies whose expenditures are charged to Billing. That would explain why Billing's clerical supply expenditures are much higher than Accounting's even if, as the Head of Billing claims, Billing is not wasting supplies.

The correct answer is E.

C vs E:
C: All we know is that there is a wide variety of supplies. This could mean that there could be more supplies but at the same cost too. Price is not mentioned so we can't say much from this.
E: This makes sense. If the supplies get reduced and replenished faster than before, then, we can say that it was because of the Acc Dept.
Hope this helps!

Most of the explanations are apt here, I wanted to add another perspective on why E is better than C. The Manager asked the head of billing if "there is wastage of supplies in billing" To which the head replies "No not at all". We are now asked to provide support to head of billing. If we look at E, choice E also addresses the question asked by manager directly than choice C. E says that the supplies are being utilized by accounting as well hence the increased costs but not because of wastage. While C doesnot address that, so one more vote for E.

The key to solve this question is to understand the conclusion of the Manager. What is the Head of Billing negating?
The conclusion is about the wastage of supplies by Billing Dept. Hence our answer choice should support the fact that Billing Dept. is not wasting any supplies.
Once we understand this, we can easily arrive at (E) as our correct answer.

Hope this helps!

C is good, E is better.
Therefore E

I see that many people have confusion between choosing Options C & E.

Lets see what the question says -

Manager: Accounting and Billing are located right next to each other and the two departments do similar kinds of work; yet expenditures for clerical supplies charged to Billing are much higher. Is Billing wasting supplies?

Head of Billing: Not at all.

Now, Option C says - The work of Billing now requires a wider variety of clerical supplies than it did in the past. This is clearly incorrect since the Q mentions that both departments do similar kind of work so their supplies should be kind of similar wrt each other. Clearly, Option C has a flaw.

Hence, E is the right answer.


Hey, Bunuel any thought on my explanation?

Option C is actually doesn't support the reasoning that Billing is not wasting supplies because it compares the supplies needed by Billing in the past versus now. If Billing needs a wider variety now, then it's likely that Accounting does too given its similar nature of work. Nonetheless, the expenditures of Billing it higher than those of Accounting. So it's probable that Billing is wasting supplies.

The question is trying to find a statement that strengthens the position of the Head of Billing, who argues that the higher expenditure on supplies in his department is not due to waste. (Please correct me in case you feel that I'm wrong, and I'll rectify those mistakes.)

(E) directly supports the Head of Billing's position by offering a plausible reason why the Billing department's expenditure on supplies is higher: members of the Accounting department have been using supplies from the Billing department's cabinet, resulting in a higher charge to the Billing department's budget.

Option (C) (I got confused here), on the other hand, while it might explain an increase in expenditure, it doesn't necessarily strengthen the Head of Billing's claim that there is no waste happening. An increased variety of supplies might or might not lead to increased expenditure, depending on the cost of these supplies. However, it doesn't directly deal with the issue of "waste".

Answer choice (E) gives a direct reason why the Billing department's expenditure would be higher without any implication of waste, hence strengthening the Head of Billing's claim.

Hello AnthonyRitz ,
I am confused between Option C and E .
Please find my reasoning below:-

We want to support the position of HOB ie Despite the increase in expenditures charged to Billing Department ( Even though Billing and Accounting do similar kind of works) , billing Department is not Wasting Supplies.

(C) The work of Billing now requires a wider variety of clerical supplies than it did in the past.

Ok , hence billing department require more variety of clerical supplies and hence the rise in expenditure.

Opponents of Option C mention that the Question Stimulus say "Accounting and Billing are located right next to each other and the two departments do similar kinds of work . So, since both departments do similar kind of work so their supplies should be kind of similar wrt each other"

I don't agree with them. Even though they do similar kind of work we cannot assume that they should require same variety of clerical supplies.


(E) Members of Accounting found the clerical supplies cabinet of Billing more convenient to go to for supplies than their own department’s cabinet.

Ok, so in crux option E wants us to understand that Members of Accounting are using the supplies of Billing Department . Hence , the increased expenditure of Billing Department is due to the additional use of Supplies by Accounting Department.

BUT, the above is a JUMP that we have to make to come the above conclusion.

Let me talk more about the JUMP

OPTION E mentions that Members of Accounting found supplies cabinet of Billing more convenient to go than their own department's cabinet.

No-where it is mentioned that they are actually using the supplies of Billing Department. I have to make an ASSUMPTION that Members finding the cabinet of Billing Department more convenient is equivalent to Members actually using the cabinet of Billing Department.

Due to this assumption that we have to make I rejected Option E.
Whereas Option C is Straightforward

Please Guide
Thanks

One of the most important considerations when evaluating a comparison on the GMAT is this:

What is the baseline against which we are comparing?

To justify the Billing Department's higher expenditures, we might want to show that the Billing Department requires more supplies than the Accounting Department does. The problem with C is simply that it doesn't say that.



Okay, so what? Billing requires more supplies than it used to. But does it require more supplies than Accounting does? Maybe Billing used to require very little, and now requires a medium amount -- but it still uses a ton, and that's a problem. Maybe Accounting also now requires more supplies than it used to. Work nowadays just takes more supplies than it used to, for everyone, perhaps. None of this shows or even remotely hints that Billing requires more supplies than Accounting does.

So ultimately C is just not doing anything useful for us.

Note that this is a classic, classic trap. Recognize the pattern and start to look out for it, and you can avoid it next time!

As for E, I just don't find it very speculative to say that if ... then those members probably do in fact use supplies from the clerical supplies cabinet of Billing. This isn't a huge assumption, to me. In fact, if it's true, then it it is very, very likely the explanation of more supplies being used from the Billing Department.

Note that E highlights and addresses the gap between "expenditures for clerical supplies used by Billing are much higher" (which the argument never technically says) and "expenditures for clerical supplies charged to Billing are much higher" (which is what the argument actually says instead). It's definitely the winner here.

I hope this helps!

Thank You AnthonyRitz.

I generally get confused to what is within the logical boundaries to assume and what not.
So , Lets take the example of this question.

In Option C



We can reason for Option E in the similar lines as well.


May be MOA found clerical supplies cabinet of Billing more convenient in the past but now they don't find.
May be Members of Billing dont allow the members of Accounting to use from their cabinet.

All I want to understand is whether my assumptions (or logical interpretation from the option) is far fetched or is reasonable.

I hope I was able to explain my doubt.

Regards

This is fair. I think evaluating how significant a gap is comes down to what you have evidence for, combined with a little bit of common sense.

For instance, you highlight the word "found," but if Accounting "found" the Billing supply cabinet more convenient, then wouldn't we think they probably still "find" it more convenient, absent any other information? And regardless, couldn't Billing's current charges for supplies still be affected by even (recent) prior use of supplies? I mean, I pay now to replace the supplies that I used up before, right? So there's at least circumstantial evidence that suggests that probably this could explain the situation. Any speculation we're doing is far less than painting a picture from a blank canvas.

On the other hand, I don't see how C provides any real evidence that Billing needs more supplies than Accounting does. How does it help at all? We're painting a picture out of nothing here. Hell, I could pick D (or A or B or really anything) and say, "oh, by the way, they didn't say this, but Billing requires more supplies than Accounting does, so there you go."

Two dialogues:


1.

Argument: "Billing pays for more supplies to do the same work, so Billing is wasting supplies."
E: "No, but see, Accounting found it more convenient to use supplies from Billing's supply cabinet."
Argument: "So what?"
E: "So, probably, Accounting did, in fact, use supplies from Billing's cabinet, which would depress Accounting's supply costs and raise Billing's. In that case, Billing's higher costs don't show any waste."
Argument: "Yeah, but that was in the past."
E: "Sure, but past use could easily account for current costs, since we have to replace what we used before, and anyway if Accounting found this more convenient in the past they probably still do now."
Argument: "Couldn't something have changed?"
E: "Sure, but we have no evidence that it did."
Argument:


2.

Argument: "Billing pays for more supplies to do the same work, so Billing is wasting supplies."
C: "No, but see, Billing needs more supplies than they used to."
Argument: "So what?"
C: "So they probably need more supplies than Accounting does. In that case, Billing's higher costs don't show any waste."
Argument: "If Billing needs more supplies than they used to, wouldn't Accounting probably need more supplies too?"
C: "Yeah, but we don't know that."
Argument: "Sure, but there's evidence. We're not asking for certainty here, but the fact that the two departments do basically the same work, in basically the same place, strongly suggests that they would probably need basically the same resources to get the job done. If one department's needs increased, the other's probably did too."
C:
Argument: "Also, even if that's not the case, how do we know that Billing didn't just need less than Accounting in the past, and now they need the same amount? Is that story any less likely than the story in which they used to need the same amount, but now Billing needs more?"
C: "It could go either way. Doesn't that mean I weakened the argument?"
Argument: "In some sense, it could have gone either way before. What evidence did you add that bears on this question, exactly?"
C:


I feel like each dialogue ends where the evidence runs out, and any further step in each would be where rank speculation takes over.