jabhatta2 wrote:
VeritasKarishma - I agree OA is E but when I did this, I could not eliminate D straight away unfortunately.
Option D : Workers whose training is subsidized partially or wholly tend to get as much training as workers who are willing to pay for the training for themselves
Doesn't this show if true, that companies will NOT need to subsidize training sessions (partial subsidy or full subsidy) as people who want to be trained are willing to pay for the training themselves.
This seems to suggest that the conclusion made by the company [that we have to increase budget of training] is wrong to begin with
Is this how you eliminate D ?
Focus on the question:
Which of the following would, if true, contribute most to defeating the training experts’ objection to the firms’ strategy?
Firms' strategy - Train people
Training experts’ objection - When you train people and they leave to join your competitor, you lose that money you spent on training and instead it benefits your competitor.
What will weaken this objection?
Saying 'but the training of people who stay benefits me more than the loss'
This is what (E) says.
D. Research shows that workers whose training is wholly or partially subsidized by their employer tend to get at least as much training as do workers who pay for all their own training.
The comparison is between workers who pay themselves vs workers for whom employers pay. That is irrelevant to us. We need to look at the situation from the viewpoint of the company - whether training benefits the company or not. Whether the workers will train themselves or not and whether it will be useful to them or not is irrelevant to the question.