Mr. Blatt: Expert consultants are sought after by management because

I would also opt for answer choice C.

By reducing their fees, the consultants also reduce their perceived value to potential clients as per the rational provided by Mr. Fring.

To understand why Option C is the right answer we need to understand the correlation established by person#2.
The higher the fee, the higher the blame. Consequently the lower the fee, the lower the blame, the lower the interest to hire the consultant.

OA:C

(A) A company that is trying to decide whether to move its manufacturing plant hires an expensive expert to conduct a cost/benefit analysis.
- strengthening blatt position
(B) Two competing companies faced with very similar problems adopt different solutions.
-irrelevant
(C) A successful firm of expert consultants seeks to increase its volume of business by reducing its fees, but its volume of business drops.
- correct, strengthen fling position
(D) An expert consultant builds up a successful business by charging clients a substantial percentage of the amount an independent assessor judges that the consultant saved the company. - strengthen blatt position why consultants are required

(E) A company follows a consultant's advice to open two new stores, but both stores are only marginally profitable at first- tells about profitability first , what about latter time, partial information, so E is out

Ms. Fring refutes what Mr. Blatt says by pointing out that Expert Consultants aren't hired because they help to make better decisions, but because they are only hired to rid client executives of responsibilities. And a high fee means they can be blamed even more when things go wrong.

So, in case of a Successful Consultant firm that drops its fee but loses out on Business, the clients would naturally go to the expensive firms (that aren't so successful) and these firms are more likely to fail, and that would mean more blame on the consultants that are hired.

We find this scenario in Choice C.

Mr Blatt's position - Expert consultants are hired to provide expert advice
Ms Fring's position - Expert consultants are not hired to provide expert advice, rather they are hired to push the blame on when something goes wrong. In addition to that, the charge is directly proportional to the blame.

(A) A company that is trying to decide whether to move its manufacturing plant hires an expensive expert to conduct a cost/benefit analysis.
- This suggests that the consultants are hired for theur expert opinion
- Weakens F's position

(B) Two competing companies faced with very similar problems adopt different solutions.
- Does not strengthen / weaken either persons' claims.
- In such a scenario we can also say that no consulatants were hired.
-Wrong

(C) A successful firm of expert consultants seeks to increase its volume of business by reducing its fees, but its volume of business drops.
- F says that more the consultants are paid more they can be blamed for a failure.
- In case if the consultants reduce their fees, the companies will not be able to blame a lot on the consultants. Hence, lesser number of companies decide to hire those consultants
- Correct

(D) An expert consultant builds up a successful business by charging clients a substantial percentage of the amount an independent assessor judges that the consultant saved the company.
- In negates F's position.
- This states that the opinion of the consultant in fact helped the company. As per F's position the consultant must be blamed for the companies failures.
- Wrong

(E) A company follows a consultant's advice to open two new stores, but both stores are only marginally profitable at first.
- Weakens F's position
- To support F's position, the company must endure a loss and then blame the loss on the consultant
-Wrong

nightblade354
Many of the users are of the view that option D can be rejected because it strengthens the SPEAKER A'S position, but I dont think it is the correct reason.
Option D, like option C, speaks of increase in the business of EXPERT CONSULTANTS, but option D says that the CONSULTANTS charged a SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE. How can we compare higher percentage with substantial amount.
For eg: a consultant used to charge $100, but now he charges $200 (100% more), but still it is not a substantial amount.
Please correct if i am wrong.

deveshj21, (D) is completely irrelevant and hence out of scope for this question. We don’t care that they charge a fair value. The goal is to strengthen the idea that the more a consultant is paid, the more responsibility they take. (D) tells us nothing about this relationship.

Posted from my mobile device

Blatt's reasoning is that consultants help make better decisions, warranting their high fees.

Fring's reasons that consultants don't help make better decisions, but are hired to take blame when things go wrong.

"The more the experts cost, the more they can be blamed when things go wrong."

We need to find an answer choice that strengthens this position.

Choice A favors Blatt's position.

Choice B, D, and E don't really favor either position.

Choice C tells us that a firm's volume of business dropped as a result of reducing its fees, suggesting a correlation between the cost of consultants and the blame that can be placed on these consultants. C is the answer.

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.