cssk wrote:
When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters. It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Therefore, companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
A) A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company’s initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others.
B) Some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, or technical matters.
C) New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than when they must secure funding or skills from nonfounders.
D) Founders of a new company can more easily acquire marketing and management abilities than technical abilities.
E) A new company is more likely to succeed if its technical experts are also skilled in management and marketing than if they lack management or marketing skills.
Please explain your answers and start discussion
Nice
defender assumption question.
First of all, when we see this kind of question,
a correct answer is the one that could
eliminate the weakness of a conclusion.
ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:Fact: When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters.
Fact: It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters.
Conclusion: companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.
Pre-thinking: what if a single founder who only has funding can hire non-founder members who have skills in marketing, management and technical matters? Clearly, a company can be successful.
<==This is a weakness of the conclusion.Assumption: The defender assumption should
eliminate the weakness above.
Thus, the assumption should be “it is likely that a company founded by an individual, who often hires non-founder members having skills in business, is less successful than a company founded by group of founders.
ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:A) A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company’s initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others.
Wrong. The equal contribution does not help to bolster the conclusion. A can’t be an assumption.
B) Some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, or technical matters.
Wrong. B does not violate the conclusion. It’s true that some founding members can provide both funding and skills. But B does not help to elucidate why companies founded by groups are more likely to be successful than companies founded by individuals.
C) New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than when they must secure funding or skills from non-founders.
Correct. C clearly
ELIMINATES the weakness of the conclusion. C is the correct defender assumption.
D) Founders of a new company can more easily acquire marketing and management abilities than technical abilities.
Wrong. Nothing to compare here. D is out scope.
E) A new company is more likely to succeed if its technical experts are also skilled in management and marketing than if they lack management or marketing skills.
Wrong. Same error as in D. The comparison between each founding members does not help at all. E is not relevant.
Hope it helps a bit.
close
19 Dec 2013, 11:35
45%
(medium)
33%
(02:21)
wrong 
