Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
13 Nov 2018, 05:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
32% (02:23) correct
68%
(02:29)
wrong
based on 409
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Microsoft Teams, a chat-based workspace that improves the productivity of employees and is licensed per employee, aims to displace Slack, the market leader in this field. Microsoft believes that Teams is so much better than Slack that it is offering it to organizations with an average employee expense higher than $25 per hour for no charge other than compensation for the time saved by the organization by using Teams over using Slack the prior year. Microsoft claims that in 1 year it would be able to more than make up for the cost of service.
Which of the following, if it takes place, is likely to make it difficult for Microsoft to recuperate the cost of Teams?
A. Economy going in recession forcing employers to let go of several high cost employees.
B. Slack starting to research on improving its product to the extent that it almost becomes just as good as Teams.
C. Employers outsourcing a bunch of work currently done by the lowest cost employees, reducing the overall employee count.
D. The additional revenue that Microsoft receives from increased adoption of other Microsoft Products integrated with Teams.
E. The reduction in revenue caused by lowered reliance on a few other Microsoft’s products that Teams makes redundant.
Which of the following, if it takes place, is likely to make it difficult for Microsoft to recuperate the cost of Teams?
A. Economy going in recession forcing employers to let go of several high cost employees.
B. Slack starting to research on improving its product to the extent that it almost becomes just as good as Teams.
C. Employers outsourcing a bunch of work currently done by the lowest cost employees, reducing the overall employee count.
D. The additional revenue that Microsoft receives from increased adoption of other Microsoft Products integrated with Teams.
E. The reduction in revenue caused by lowered reliance on a few other Microsoft’s products that Teams makes redundant.
AdityaHongunti
Posts: 533
14 Nov 2018, 07:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
Understand :
- MT wants to displace S
- MT plan - offer service to orgs with avg emp expense HIGHER than 25 for free.
- MT will earn - time saved by employees by working on MT relative to that of S (TIME TAKEN BY S LAST YEAR) ( for eg : if S took 10 mins and MT took 5 mins , MT will charge only for the 5 mins ,that is the time saved)
-MT conclusion : MORE THAN MAKE UP for the cost of service. That is MT will not only regain the costs BUT also gain some more revenue from this service.
Quote:
- Which of the following , IF IT TAKES PLACE (They arent yet real. ) , will weaken MT's claim. (that is costs won't be regained)
Think : MT thinks that T is better than S and T will save time and hence thinks that offering the service for free and charging only for the time saved , will be more than enough to regain costs . He hasnt presented any reasonable facts or data to make his claim. He just says MT is better than S.
The relevant facets we have to focus on are : 1) save time 2) number of average employees paid more than 25 MT will be offered to.
1)what if something happens and MT's time drastically increases with respect to that of S.? then the time SAVED may not be much.
assumption : nothing may harm MT's time
2)what if the number of emp( paid more than 25) reduce , outweighing the gains made by savings?? see MT is basing his claim on CURRENT statistics . for eg : 100 emp (paid more than 25) are given services. Cost per service 10$ . total cost = 100*10 = 1000 (now this 1000$ is invested). So if the number of employees paid more than 25 decrease substantially then how will MT get it's cost back?? even if we consider savings , if the no. of emp lost is substantial then cost wont be repurcated.
Assumption : Number of emp (paid more than 25$) dont reduce substantially to outweigh savings gain.
(all i did was think along the given data. Nothing Out of scope)
Quote:
- read Scenario 2 : if orgs fire high cost emps (more than 25$) and that too SEVERAL. Then the costs won't be regained even if there are savings.
see MT is basing his claim on CURRENT statistics . for eg : 100 emp (paid more than 25) are given services. Cost per service 10$ . total cost = 100*10 = 1000 (now this 1000$ is invested). So if the number of employees paid more than 25 decrease then how will MT get it's cost back?? even if we consider savings , if the no. of emp lost is substantial then cost wont be repurcated.
Quote:
- STARTING TO RESEARCH .. MT is going to save time relative to time spent by S LAST YEAR. So even if S did something NOW. T may still gain as we are saving with respect to LAST YEAR'S time.
Quote:
- MT is offering the service to 25$ per hour worker and not to LOWEST cost employees. so even if LOWEST cost emps get lost , the number of emps paid higher than 25$ may still be the same. NO IMPACT.
Quote:
- MT is concerned about this service only.
Quote:
-We are concerned about only this service. TOTAL REVENUE of M is not our concern.
Note :1) the main part of this question was "if it takes place " ..why is it relevant? because MT is basing its clain on CURRENT STATS.
2) A little bit general info : 25$ / hour is pretty handsome pay. Even if you did not know this , the ans choices are clear enough by stating "lowest " and "high"
3) choice B : trap - IF you did not read carefully, then you wouldve thot that if S cathces up with MT on time , then no savings. BUT the saving are on LAST YEAR. and not future.
4) Always always think before you solve. You dont have to think too much. Just take the author's given data and try to find such a thing which would weaken his claim. For eg : what if (read above).
5) the entire reasoning falls apart if you try to PROVE ans choices. We are asked to weaken , not disprove.
General Discussion
13 Nov 2018, 12:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
Was confused between A and C but chose A as letting go of high cost employees will reduce the compensation more than letting go of lowest cost employees causing greater impact to Microsoft's business with Teams.
B and D are irrelevant and E too is upon closer look as Microsoft would have already accounted for E once they propose this plan.
B and D are irrelevant and E too is upon closer look as Microsoft would have already accounted for E once they propose this plan.
