Many of Vebrol Corporation's department heads Will retire this year.

Many department heads are retiring this year.
Eligible candidates for department heads = 50% of vacancies.
Department heads can't handle multiple departments and candidates are not hired from outside the company.
Conclusion: Few departments will not have department heads.

We have to find an answer choice that supports the conclusion.

A) promote more than one employee from any department to serve as heads of departments - Incorrect. Even if the company promoted more than one employee the number of eligible candidates is only half the number of vacancies.

B) promote any current department heads to higher-level managerial positions - Incorrect. No effect on the conclusion.

C) have any managers Who are currently senior to department heads serve as department heads - Correct. Supports the conclusion by providing one more condition.

D) reduce the responsibilities of each department - Incorrect. Out of scope. We do not have any stated relationship between responsibilities of a department and department head.

E) reduce the average number of employees per department - Incorrect. Even if there were few employees in the department the department can be without a department head.

Answer: C

Imo C
If the managers who are senior to department heads will not be asked to remain department head then there will be more vacancy for department heads , hence this is what C is saying .

A: Even if Vebrol promoted employees, there would still be some depts without leaders. Eliminate

B: Similar to A. This would exacerbate the problem. Eliminate

C: Hold

D: Irrelevant. The argument is not about the responsibility of departments. The argument is about headcount and vacancies.

E: This is already happening. If the company were to avoid reducing headcount, then this answer choice provides the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.

Let's look at C. It reminds me of "have current dept heads take over..."

C) have any managers Who are currently senior to department heads serve as department heads --Correct

HI

Can someone please explain why option A cant be the answer to this question.
If from every department more than 1 employee serve as heads of departments(1 employee= many heads), then isn't this a valid option?
If the company did this action, then there will be no vacancies.

VeritasKarishma
VeritasPrepBrian
chetan2u
MartyTargetTestPrep
nightblade354
Gladiator59

Regards
Nitesh

nitesh50,

(A) is not our answer because it doesn't tell us anything. We are only told that there are employees who can be promoted. What if they are all from the same department because they all have MBAs from Harvard and are great at their jobs? Just because more than one is promoted does not help our conclusion because it doesn't grow/shrink our pool of candidates. I believe you made the assumption that if the VP is promoted, his AVP can't be promoted to that same level; or maybe you didn't account for the fact that a department can have more than one VP. Either way, do not make assumptions! Use what the author gave you to use. (C) perfectly explains that the pool will not increase, and thus strengthens our conclusion that some departments will go without leaders.

Hi nightblade354

that if the VP is promoted, his AVP can't be promoted to that same level; or maybe you didn't account for the fact that a department can have more than one VP. Either way, do not make assumptions! Use what the author gave you to use. (C) perfectly explains that the pool will not increase, and thus strengthens our conclusion that some departments will go without leaders.

I dont understand the initial you have mentioned. Can you please define them. VP AVP.
Sorry for the inconvenience

Regards

nitesh50,

VP = Vice President and AVP = Associate Vice President; one is higher than the other. My point was that maybe you assumed that two cannot be promoted if one is below the other in position during the promotional period.

Hi nightblade354

I do understand your point.
But IMO i am not making any assumptions.
Statment is Company will not promote more than one employee to be HEADS OF DEPARTMENT.

Let us say that the company does this. If this is a valid strengthner, then Department heads will not have vacancies.

If company promotes employees from one department to be HEADS OF OTHER DEPARTMENT, then in this case there may be no vacancies.

Am I clear in conveying my doubt?

Regards

nitesh50,

Many of Vebrol Corporation's department heads Will retire this year.
The number of employees with the qualifications Vebrol Will require for promotion to department head is equal to only half the expected vacancies.
Vebrol is not going to hire department heads from outside the company, have current department heads take over more than one department, or reduce the number of its departments.
So some departments Will be without department heads next year, since Vebrol Will not__________________________

We cannot say that the first part in blue is incorrect; and we cannot ignore this statement. We are given a finite set of circumstances, and that leads us to our conclusion. We are told that if there are 10 openings, only 5 people are qualified. There are other conclusions that can fill the gap, but (C) is where they went. When you pair (A) with the part in blue, I hope you see that (A) doesn't matter and is completely useless.

Very similar question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-large-numb ... 35910.html

Only option A and C are contenders...

Option A is not a very strong reason why "some departments Will be without department heads next year".
Even if this is true that "Verbol will promote more than one employee from any department to serve as heads of departments " then also we can say that "some departments Will be without department heads next year" because it has been said in the passage that "The number of employees with the qualifications Vebrol Will require for promotion to department head is equal to only half the expected vacancies."

Option C gives a strong reason as to why the pool will not increase .

So C is the answer.

Actually A is irrelevant. We already know that number of employees qualified for promotion are only half of the available position. Whether these employees are ffrom one deaprtment or multiple departments , it doesn't matter because we are concerned about total qualified employees w.r.t to available position

C gives clear information that there would be no new entrants .
Argument mentioned : 1. not going to hire department heads from outside the company; 2. not going to have current department heads take over more than one department; 3. not going to reduce the number of its departments.
C information gives us 4th reason: not going to have any managers who are currently senior to department heads serve as department heads

Warning: Q from an Official Mock

https://youtu.be/sLH1x_PcJYs

Hi GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo VeritasKarishma Veritas egmat ManhattanPrep Other experts

Is below line of reasoning correct?

In option A,it is possible that a single person is given the responsibility of more than 1 dept. ,in this way all vacancies can be filled.
For example there are 100 vacancies,and eligible employees are only 50.I can distribute 2 departments each to 50 employees.Thus,all 100 vacancies will be filled.

Not quite.

The argument gives us points why some vacancies will not be filled:

- The number of employees with the qualifications Vebrol will require for promotion to department head is equal to only half the expected vacancies.
- Vebrol is not going to hire department heads from outside the company,
- will not have current department heads take over more than one department,
- will not reduce the number of its departments.

These are the ways in which Vebrol could have filled up the dept heads positions but it will not.

Question stem: So some departments will be without department heads next year, since Vebrol will not_______

So we are looking for another point that covers a possible solution in which the vacancies can be filled up. We need what else will Vebrol not do which will lead to some depts being without heads.

A) promote more than one employee from any department to serve as heads of departments

This tells us that more than 1 employee will not be picked from a department. It doesn't add much to the argument. The argument already tells us that number of eligible employees is half of the required number.
So if heads of 10 depts are retiring, we have only 5 eligible employees. Which depts these employees belong to and whether they belong to same or all different depts is irrelevant. Option (A) tells us that from each dept at most 1 employee will be promoted to dept head. It doesn't give us another reason why some dept head vacancies will not be filled.

C) have any managers Who are currently senior to department heads serve as department heads

Correct. This tells us that Vebrol will not demote some of its seniors to dept head position so that's another way in which it could have filled in the dept head positions but will not.

KarishmaB Ma'am,

Just to rephrase what you stated for option A. We know that the number of employees with qualifications for dept. heads is half of the required vacancies. Even if they promote at most a single person from the department, then too there would be some departments without department heads. So option A does not impact our argument in anyway.