12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 10: Over the past

Pratyaksh1907

Joined: 17 Nov 2024

Last visit: 19 Apr 2026

Posts: 35

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 38

Products:

Posts: 35

Kudos: 11

27 Dec 2025, 01:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

NexCom's customer satisfaction has remain stable------> So, Firms should avoid generative AI [Link]

Premise - competitors have experienced decrease in customer satisfaction for a broader client base.
We need to weaken the link.

We can come up with a pre thinking point that Broader base and long-term enterprise base is differnet.
Something related to the supporting link which can be weakened. Let's explore the answer choice.

Bunuel

A. For anything, it's a strengthener.
B. This tells us about the understanding of the client for our AI-based tool. This doesn't give any information about our AI-based interaction tools.
C. This is strengthening the Human Involvement part of NexCom. But it doesn't explain the part that why AI should not be implemented in firms. There can be other firms where Human agents are not well-equipped right?
D. Irrelevant
E. This is a valid weakener. If the staffs, who adapted to the AI changed environment, are not present, then these competitors won't be able to make complete use of this AI tool.

adityamntr

Joined: 15 Jul 2023

Last visit: 21 Feb 2026

Posts: 111

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 13

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27

Posts: 111

Kudos: 81

27 Dec 2025, 02:11

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

A. does not capture the perofmrance in completeness, also not compared to humans superiority
B. it is a problem on cleint side ont about the AI
C. this strengehten the arguement
D. just the interst won't be responsible in evaluting the effectiveness of AI
E. This exaclty hioglights that the drop was not because of AI, but because of untrained staff, So AI could be better. hence weakining the arguement.

Answer is E

jkkamau

Joined: 25 May 2020

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 226

Own Kudos:

190

[1]

Given Kudos: 142

Location: Kenya

Schools: Haas '25

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

Products:

Schools: Haas '25

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V46 Verified score

Posts: 226

Kudos: 190

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 02:58

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. This is a neutral perspective about the changes and does not explain why the satisfaction among competitors declined thus incorrect
B. Correct. This states the decline in satisfaction was not unreliability of the AI but the unfamiliarity of its usage by the users hence nullifies the executive reasoning
C. This choice actually supports the executive conclusion
D. This one offers a probable opportunity cost that Nexcom could have missed on by not adopting AI
E. While tempting this choice shows that the company could actually benefit from the AI if it retains its staff but does not give an alternative explanation why Nexcom client satisfaction remained stable
Ans B

Bunuel

Gmat860sanskar

Joined: 05 May 2023

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 210

Own Kudos:

111

[1]

Given Kudos: 78

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

GMAT Focus 1: 605 Q82 V78 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 210

Kudos: 111

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 03:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Stimulus :

Claim : Due to not pivoting to AI agents, firm preserved service quality

Premise : All competitive firms which chose Ai agents saw decline in customer experience

Options :

A: This option is irrelevant --- Incorrect

B : Great, so it's not AI agent which is the issue here, it is something else. This is exactly what we need --- Correct

C : This strengthens the argument --- Incorrect

D : This is irrelevant --- Incorrect

E: retrain staff is not the focus here. AI agents performance is the main focus ---- Incorrect

Ans - B

Thanks! Have a great day.

sunshineeee

Joined: 17 May 2020

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 96

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 223

Location: Indonesia

Schools: Stern '26 (WL) Tepper '26 (WL) BU'26 (A) Ross '26 Johnson '26

Posts: 96

Kudos: 22

27 Dec 2025, 04:06

Kudos

Bookmarks

Conclusion: AVOIDING gen AI PRESERVED SERVICE QUALITY and the firm should CONTINUE relying on HUMAN reps.

Evidence:
- customer satisfaction score remained stable, while some competitors serving a broader base have declined
- Its customer base (long-term enterprise client) chose not to integrate gen AI, concerned about response accuracy and brand tone

Assumption
- Preserve service quality = following its customer base's needs = no need using AI

Weakened
- What if the customer base needs another gen-AI tool for other use cases?

IMO, I guess the answer might be
D. While clients reported a stable satisfaction score, they also expressed interest in features that AI tools could support, such as 24/7 assistance

Why weakening? Meaning if NexCom wants to keep preserving service quality, they need to not avoid genAI. because it's what their customers want

Why others might be incorrect
A. irrelevant, not argue with firms that adopted gen AI.
B. not argue on the familiarity of competing firms' clients
C. not argue on the comparison between NexCom human agents vs AI tools
E. not argue on the reason why competitors fail

Bunuel

harishg

Joined: 18 Dec 2018

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 176

Own Kudos:

174

Given Kudos: 31

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V84 DI81 Verified score

Posts: 176

Kudos: 174

27 Dec 2025, 04:06

Kudos

Bookmarks

A- This is a strengthener. If client response is mixed about the interaction quality, that is all the more reason the company should not rely on AI models for it’s customer service.

B - Regardless of the reason why the clients might have been dissatisfied with the service, the satisfaction scores were down and so the conclusion holds.

C - This is a strengthener as it gives a positive aspect of using humans instead of AI models for customer service. We are supposed to do the opposite.

D - This is our weakener. If the clients do express interest in some AI models themselves, then a hybrid way might have been the best way forward instead of completely shunning AI models.

E - We do not how much ‘some’ is. If it was a substantial percentage of the competitions, then it might be a weakener. As such, it does not weaken the argument.

Therefore, Option D imo

msignatius

Joined: 28 Aug 2025

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 131

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 31

Location: India

Concentration: Strategy, Marketing

Schools: ISB '27 NUS '26 INSEAD Jan '26 (S) IESE '26 (D) HEC (S) IMD ESADE'26 Judge '26 LBS '27

GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q86 V85 DI84 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

WE:Marketing (Consulting)

Products:

Schools: ISB '27 NUS '26 INSEAD Jan '26 (S) IESE '26 (D) HEC (S) IMD ESADE'26 Judge '26 LBS '27

GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q86 V85 DI84 Verified score

Posts: 131

Kudos: 98

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 04:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

We are presented a nice little predicament on the role and importance of Generative AI in client interactions.

Several customer service firms have already adopted the ChatGPTs and the Geminis of the world to automate client interactions.

But NexCom has a much less elastic user-base - enterprise, long-term. Such tools, NexCom implies, will muddle responses and disrupt the brand's tone. (This isn't hard to imagine why - for instance, it isn't hard to tell which of these responses above are ChatGPT generated

There's a certain tone - and last thing you want for a client-facing company is to present yourself as more beep-bop-beep-bop.

NexCom's seen the results of its stand as well - its customer satisfaction scores remain stable, while its competitors dealing with a broader base of casual users have experienced a decline.

NexCom's executives, in this case, clearly support their decision to avoid GenAI, maintaining service quality and discrediting any future use of such AI.

The answer need here will have to prove that no - it isn't the lack of GenAI use or excellent work done by human reps - that is preserving said quality.

Let's see the options.

A. This supports what the executives conclude, or may even just be irrelevant. The mixed quality of interactions seen here proves that, especially for more dedicated customers, NexCom would only risk losing customers by implementing GenAI. Or you could even argue that until we have an idea of the buyer profile at these firms cited (we get "casual customers" here - which isn't the case with NexCom's dedicated clientele); whatever happened with them could be irrelevant to what will happen to NexCom if they go for GenAI.

B. This is correct, if you analyze how this one very directly (although, subtly) undermines what the NexComm execs think. These execs believe they dodged a bullet by opting against GenAI; and it is shown competitors who did have seen a drop in their customer experience scores. Yet, with this option, we can see that the customers who apparently responded to the GenAI transition had no way of telling whether these were human or robots they were speaking with. It's also possible that by "automation" the tools meant here weren't AI bots, but AI-based customer management platforms or other workflows that aren't even as customer-facing. Hence, this just proves NexCom's executives at best, confused, at worst, wrong.

C: This supports what NexCom says quite directly - that their agents helped preserve the customer service quality. Eliminate.

D: NexCom's clients may be interested in AI - but that doesn't matter in lieu of how well NexCom's human agents are purported to have performed; plus, interest is a neutral word. Irrelevant. Eliminate.

E: This proves that it is more-so an internal operational challenge - or an alternative to NexComs' agents expectation of why competitors failed - that has caused a decline in satisfaction scores, which does work as a weakener to their argument, but not as strongly as B.

Bunuel

Quote:

MANASH94

Joined: 25 Jun 2025

Last visit: 11 Apr 2026

Posts: 88

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 16

Location: India

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

GPA: 2.9

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

Posts: 88

Kudos: 63

27 Dec 2025, 04:45

Kudos

Bookmarks

We must first identify the jump in logic the executives are making.

Deconstruct the argument:
The Observation the NexCom (Enterprise focus, human-only) has stable scores. Competitors have declining scores. The Executives'Conclusion is that avoiding AI is the reason for preserved quality, and they should stick to humans only.
The Logical Flaw as pe rme is that the executives assume that the AI itself caused the decline at other firms, rather than how it was implemented or other differences between the companies.

Evaluating the Options
A. Several firms saw increased efficiency despite mixed sentiment. (Seems incorrect)
This is a bit neutral. It doesn't explain why NexCom’s scores stayed stable or why the competitors' scores fell.

B. Clients of competing firms were unfamiliar with support systems. (Seems Incorrect)
This suggests the decline might be due to user error or interface changes rather than the AI's quality, but it doesn't challenge the idea that NexCom is better off without AI.

C. NexCom’s human agents are better equipped than AI to handle complex concerns. (Seems Incorrect)
This strengthens the argument. It provides a reason why NexCom’s current human-only strategy is working.

D. Clients expressed interest in features AI could support, like 24/7 assistance. (Seems Incorrect)
While this shows a potential downside to not having AI, it doesn't prove that avoiding AI didn't preserve current quality.

E. Competitors that saw a drop in satisfaction also failed to retrain staff to adapt to the changes. (Seems this is the right option)
This for me is the strongest weakener. It provides an alternative explanation for the competitors decline. It suggests that the drop in satisfaction wasn't caused by the AI itself, but by the firms' failure to manage the transition and retrain their human staff. This implies that if a firm did implement AI properly with trained staff, they might not see a decline at all.

IMO Answer should be E.

Bunuel

Reon

Joined: 16 Sep 2025

Last visit: 28 Mar 2026

Posts: 134

Own Kudos:

121

[1]

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 134

Kudos: 121

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 05:02

Kudos

Bookmarks

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the executives’ conclusion?

A. Several firms that adopted generative AI tools saw increased response efficiency, though client sentiment about interaction quality was mixed.(The ai can still affect the quality even if clients has Mixed sentiments. This don't undermine the conclusion) Wrong

B. Clients of competing firms who experienced declining satisfaction scores were more likely to be unfamiliar with the company’s support systems or interface.(If the clients of competing firms were unfamiliar with the support system interface, then they might have faced difficuly while using it and hence has less satisfaction. If they knew how to use the interface then they might have given higher satisfaction rating. The decline is not evidence that ai reduces service quality) Correct

C. NexCom’s human agents are better equipped than AI tools to handle the complex and nuanced concerns often raised by long-standing enterprise clients.(This option supports the executives arguement) Wrong

D. While NexCom’s clients reported stable satisfaction scores, they also expressed interest in features that AI tools could support, such as 24/7 assistance.(This option tell that ai adds value but it doesn't explain the decline in satisfaction) Wrong

E. Some of NexCom’s competitors that experienced a drop in satisfaction also failed to retrain staff to adapt to the changes introduced by AI integration.(This option tell about implementation issues and it is applicable to only some of nexcom competitors, this option is weaker than B) Wrong

Dereno

Joined: 22 May 2020

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,398

Own Kudos:

1,372

Given Kudos: 425

Products:

Posts: 1,398

Kudos: 1,372

27 Dec 2025, 05:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Over the past several years, customer service firms have started using generative Ai tools to automate client interactions.

NexCom- a firm, whose customer base is primarily Long Term Enterprise Clients, choose not to opt in for such tools. The reason behind such decision is : Response accuracy, and Brand tone. The customer satisfaction rating of this firm has remained Stable.

While, during the same period, companies handling broad customers, have seen their customer satisfaction ratings decline.

The executives of the NexCom firm, has presented a view that avoiding generative Ai tools have preserved service quality, and this shows a good reason to keep proceeding with human representatives rather than Ai tools to handle customer.

We need to find an option which undermines the executives conclusion.

A) This option mentions a positive aspect that has taken place because of generative Ai. By mentioning the customer responses were mixed, clearly sets the tone as neutral. So, this option doesn’t undermine the executives conclusion. Hence, wrong.

B) If competing firms which have experienced a decline in scores, is mainly due to unfamiliarity of the company’s support system to interface, then the decline cannot be linked to the Ai tool. Hence, Wrong.

C) This option actually strengthens the executive’s view. As this options clearly demonstrate the technical prowess of the customer care team, who are more efficient than Ai tools. Hence, the stable customer satisfaction rating. Hence, Wrong.

D) This option mentions a feature within Ai tool, that can be used to provide round the clock customer support. While this is not the only way to make ends meet. This can be achieved, by putting multiple shifts to cater the needs of the customers. Hence, wrong.

E) Just because a new technological advancement is put into place, doesn’t necessarily mean the current team will be capable to hand them. The lack of training by the companies lead to declining service rating. It’s actually not the Ai tools that has failed, but the lack of preparation to make the most of it has been the underlying cause. This undermines the executive reasoning, that not adapting has protected them. Hence correct answer.

Option E

Kinshook

Major Poster

Joined: 03 Jun 2019

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 5,985

Own Kudos:

5,855

Given Kudos: 163

Location: India

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

WE:Engineering (Transportation)

Products:

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

Posts: 5,985

Kudos: 5,855

27 Dec 2025, 05:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

Over the past year, several customer service firms have adopted generative AI tools to automate client interactions. One firm, NexCom, whose customer base consists primarily of long-term enterprise clients, however, chose not to integrate such tools, citing concerns about response accuracy and brand tone.

Despite this, NexCom's customer satisfaction scores have remained stable, while some competitors serving a broader base of casual users have experienced a decline.

Conclusion: Based on this outcome, NexCom's executives argue that avoiding generative AI has preserved service quality and that the firm should continue relying solely on human representatives.

Objective: Undermine the executive's conclusion

Pre-thinking:
AI is correlated with poor quality, response inaccuracy and incorrect brand tone.
It is also mentioned that some competitors serving a broader base of casual users have experience a decline in customer satisfaction scores to support the conclusion.
What if decline in customer satisfaction scores are not because of quality of generative AI responses but because of some other factor?

Options:

A. If several firms that adopted generative AI tools saw increased response efficiency, though client sentiment about interaction quality was mixed. The statement does not clearly undermine the conclusion as it concerned with mixed interaction quality. Incorrect

B. This slightly undermines the conclusion by stating that clients of competing firms who experienced declining satisfaction scores were more likely to be unfamiliar with the company's support system or interface. The service quality issue was not because of poor quality of generative AI but because of unawareness of clients. Keep

C. If Nexcom's human agents are better equipped that AI tools to handle the complex and nuanced concerns often raised by long-standing enterprise clients, then the statement strengthens the argument and supports executives conclusion. Incorrect

D. Even if customer demand 27x7 service using AI tools, it does not undermine the executive's conclusion that avoiding generative AI has preserved service quality. Incorrect

E. If some of Nexcom's competitors that experience a drop in satisfaction also failed to retrain staff to adopt to the changes produced by AI integration, then the reason behind drop in satisfaction score is not because of poor quality of generative AI responses but because of lack of training of staffs. The statement clearly undermines the executive's conclusion that avoiding generative AI has preserved service quality. Better than B. Correct

IMO E

adityaprateek15

Joined: 26 May 2023

Last visit: 18 Apr 2026

Posts: 346

Own Kudos:

170

Given Kudos: 323

Location: India

Schools: Ross '26 Tepper '26 McCombs '26

GPA: 2.7

Products:

Schools: Ross '26 Tepper '26 McCombs '26

Posts: 346

Kudos: 170

27 Dec 2025, 06:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

To undermine this conclusion, we need an answer choice which shows an alternative cause for the competitors' decline in satisfaction.

A. Incorrect. Mixed sentiments mean both positive and negative responses. This slightly strengthens executives conculsion.

B. Incorrect. This choice doesn't show how the likelihood of unfamiliarity with the interface can affect the customer satisfaction.

C. Incorrect. This actually strengthens the conclusion.

D. Incorrect. This choice attacks the future recommendation but accepts the premise that satisfaction is currently stable. Slight strengthener.

E. Correct. This choice provides a clear alternative cause for the competitors' declining satisfaction scores.

Bunuel

firefox300

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 06:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

A AI-adopting firms saw mixed customer opinions but improved efficiency. It doesn't refute NexCom's argument.

B CORRECT. The decline in rivals' satisfaction was connected to client inexperience with the support platform, not the use of AI.

C Human agents excel at handling complex enterprise issues. It reinforces the decision to avoid AI.

D This doesn't challenge the view that human only service preserved satisfaction so far.

E This still implies AI brought challenges, so it doesn't fully undercut NexCom's conclusion.

The correct answer is B

topgmat25

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 07:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

To most seriously undermine, we need a fact showing that the decline is better explained by something else than AI.

A Mixed feedback at AI firms doesn't challenge the idea that NexCom's stability came from avoiding AI.

B Competitors' lower satisfaction was linked to client unfamiliarity with the system, not AI. It breaks the executives' causal inference. Correct answer.

C It strengthens the case for human agents, supporting the executives' conclusion.

D Clients' interest in AI features doesn't weaken the claim that avoiding AI preserved current quality.

E Competitors' drop was due to poor retraining, which still admits AI caused disruption.

The answer is B

geocircle

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 07:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

A Mixed sentiment could mean some positive, some negative. It doesn't undermine NexCom's specific situation.

B Right answer. This undermines the causal link between AI and satisfaction drop, so NexCom's stable satisfaction may not be because they avoided AI.

C This says NexCom's human agents are better for complex enterprise concerns It strengthens.

D It suggests NexCom could improve with AI, but it doesn't undermine the argument.

E It suggests problem was poor implementation, not AI itself. But AI implementation is part of using AI. It weakens but not as clearly as B.

Answer B

arnab24

Joined: 16 Jan 2024

Last visit: 25 Feb 2026

Posts: 96

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Schools: ISB '26

GPA: 8.80

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

Posts: 96

Kudos: 81

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 07:31

Kudos

Bookmarks

The main conclusion of the argument is NexCom's executives argue that avoiding generative AI has preserved service quality and that the firm should continue relying solely on human representatives. Assumption by the executives is that GEN AI is solely responsible for the collapse of customer satisfaction scores in competitive firms. And avoiding GENAI has solely preserved the service quality. Let's check options that undermines the assumption:

(A) It's slightly weakening the argument but client sentiment was still mixed. So it's incorrect.
(B) It's correct. It says GEN AI might not be solely responsible for collapse. There could be another reason such as unfamiliarity with the company's support system and interface.
(C) It's strengthening the argument rather than undermining it. It's incorrect.
(D) NexCOM Client interests were not playing key role rather factor contributing towards collapse of satisfaction score matters. So , it's incorrect.
(E) Tough choice, but still it's incorrect. Still it's counting AI integration as some sort of failure by not retraining the staff. Further Client interaction is automated so no human role is present as stated in argument. I would rather go with B over E.

So answer is B.

Bunuel

sanjitscorps18

Joined: 26 Jan 2019

Last visit: 03 Mar 2026

Posts: 723

Own Kudos:

739

[1]

Given Kudos: 130

Location: India

Schools: IMD'26

Products:

Schools: IMD'26

Posts: 723

Kudos: 739

[1]

27 Dec 2025, 07:44

Kudos

Bookmarks

A -> This strengthens the executive's decision to not adopt AI
B -> Correct. This suggests that the declining satisfaction scores is because of client's ignorance and not because of AI. This puts the executive's conclusion is doubt.
C -> This may be a reason to promote the human agents' case but may not necessarily degrade the case for AI.
D -> This goes beyond the passage's concern
E -> This puts the scanner on staff training than on AI agents. This may weaken the argument a little but not as strong as B

Option B

Bunuel