Over the past decade, many companies have begun using

Over the past decade, many companies have begun using automated telephone services; callers hear a machine-generated voice and are able to select options using the numbers on the telephone keypad. Research shows that callers are more patient when the machine-generated voice is that of a woman. Thus, smaller companies that cannot afford automated services should consider hiring women, rather than men, to interact with costomers by phone.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the conclusion above?

A. Automated telephone services are becoming cheaper and cheaper every year.
B. Patient customers tend to order more products and return fewer products than impatient customers.
C. A separated study indicated that extra patience exhibited by callers is limited to interactions with an automated system.
D. Some customers prefer automated systems to talking with a live person.
E. On average, callers are only slightly more patient when interacting with a female voice, rather than a male voice, in an automated telephone system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say Choice C is better than Choice D.

D takes care of only SOME CUSTOMERS. --- It could be 10 in a 100, so still we have 90 folks who prefer otherwise. Doesn't hurt the argument.
SOME word is ambiguous when it comes to weaken or strengthen the argument.

Does it makes sense?

This question is asking us to weaken the conclusion (or attack an assumption - remember that assumptions are logical gaps between premises and conclusions)
Premise: Callers are more patient with women over men when using an automated system.
Conclusion: Small business owners who can't afford an automated system should hire women over men (to take advantage of that increased patience).
One Assumption: Customer patience is the same with an automated system as it is with a "live" system.

Answer choice C tells us that customer patience is different between automated systems and live callers. Therefore, we cannot conclude that we will experience greater patience by hiring more women in live systems.

Answer choice E affirms that there is greater patience in an automated system and does nothing to suggest that we won't experience the same level of patience in a live system.

Answer choice D is irrelevant to the argument. The argument deals with preference between male and female and concludes that the preference (patience) will translate to a live system. The preference between automated or live systems is outside the scope of the argument. [Those people not using automated systems are doing it because they cannot afford those systems]

KW

Hello,

Can the following be explained -

Why is the Conclusion in this given Critical Reasoning question silent on the fact that
"Thus, smaller companies that cannot afford an automated service should consider hiring....."

if this aspect is taken into consideration, then Option A also looks attractive as it Weakens the conclusion
because even the Automated telephone services are getting affordable and hence No need for hiring female or male.

Thanks in Advance.

I agree to above observation. Conclusion is talking about affordibility hence A seems to be correct answer....

Remember that the GMAT is trying to trick you all the time! Option A exists because it seems relevant, but it's not damaging to the conclusion. The conclusion states that small companies should hire women and is limited to those companies that cannot afford a system. Regardless of the price of the system, only those companies that can't afford it are considered in the conclusion. Until the systems are free, there will be companies that can't afford the system, therefore the conclusion would still be valid.

Choice C is the only answer that truly damages the conclusion because the findings are not valid for human systems.

KW

According to me, The answer option D is incorrect since it is merely stating that the customers prefer the automated to the live but it is not stating any reason to do so and hence incorrect

Please correct me if i reasoning is not right

A. Automated telephone services are becoming cheaper and cheaper every year.
- This option addresses the affordability of automated services but does not directly relate to the argument about hiring women or men for phone interactions. It doesn't weaken the conclusion significantly.

B. Patient customers tend to order more products and return fewer products than impatient customers.
- This option provides information about the behavior of patient customers but does not directly challenge the argument about gender-based hiring for phone interactions. It doesn't directly weaken the conclusion.

C. A separated study indicated that extra patience exhibited by callers is limited to interactions with an automated system.
- Option (C) is the most damaging to the conclusion. It suggests that the extra patience observed in callers is specific to interactions with automated systems. If this is the case, then the argument's assumption that hiring women for live phone interactions will yield the same benefits in terms of patience is called into question.

D. Some customers prefer automated systems to talking with a live person.
- This option provides information about customer preferences but does not directly challenge the argument's conclusion regarding gender-based hiring.

E. On average, callers are only slightly more patient when interacting with a female voice, rather than a male voice, in an automated telephone system.
- This option weakens the argument by suggesting that the gender of the automated voice has only a slight impact on patience. However, it doesn't directly address the issue of whether the patience observed in automated systems can be applied to live interactions.

In summary, option (C) is the most damaging because it challenges the assumption that the extra patience exhibited by callers applies to live interactions and suggests that it is specific to automated systems. This undermines the argument for hiring women over men for phone interactions.

Why are we ignoring "smaller companies that cannot afford an automated service " line from the conclusion?
If this is the case, then option (A) stand a chance, right?

Why are we ignoring "smaller companies that cannot afford an automated service " line from the conclusion?
If this is the case, then option (A) stand a chance, right?