Leaders of a miners union on strike against Coalco are contemplating

All I could carry as an understanding for myself is that

"We should not apply two-step logical co-relation. It should be as much as possible single step co-relation."

Does anyone have an example where the above conclusion is flawed ??

yes, has to be E , as the answer to whether other corporations that own coal companies also own gas stations is irrelevant . C offers a precedent , which is obviously relevant .

The leaders of the Miners' union have decided to call for a consumer boycott against gasco.
What is meant by the term "consumer boycott"
Does it mean that the leaders of the union have decided not to consume gas at the gasco gas stations?
or does it mean that they have decioded not to attend to the consumers who come to fill gas at the gasco gas stations ?
Also Can someone elaborate on what influence does C Have on the Plan .
Is it relevant because the chances of having your proposal accepted increase if the other unions have met with some success.What if the other unions have had no success

I have chosen the answer E for this question:

A. Revenue losses would be extremely important to know. The reason is because if this boycott affects Gasco's revenue, they would probably be more inclined to deal with the situation and possibly submit to the conditions of the union's proposal. If it doesn't affect the revenue, then the union would have to find some other approach to put pressure on the company. Therefore, this answer choice is relevant.

B. If gas can easily be obtained elsewhere, this would likely make the boycott fail because consumers could go somewhere else very easily. If gas cannot be easily obtained, then this approach would definitely affect the company.

C. There seems to be a lot of questions concerning this answer choice. The way I interpreted it was that if other miners' unions won contracts, then their proposal is fair and Coalco would be see that their conditions aren't outrageous. Also, if the contracts are similar, it means that other companies have caved to these same conditions and Coalco is probably willing to do the same in order to avoid additional pressure.

D. This is obviously important because if previous tactics have worked, then there is no reason that they should not again. This knowledge tells us the likelihood of these tactics succeeding.

E. This answer choice is least relevant because we are not concerned whether coal companies also own gas companies. For example, say we choose the answer "yes" to this question. Would this tell us any additional information? How about if we chose the answer "no?" Answers to either of these questions would not be beneficial to the leaders of the miners' union.

In case there is still some ambiguity on why E is correct and not C, here is my take on it:

(C) Have other miners’unions won contracts similar to the one proposed by this union?
Since the question asks for the LEAST relevant to the Union's consideration, any information that is even remotely influential in going ahead
with the boycott can be considered as a wrong answer choice.
If we assume that other miners' unions have won contracts similar to the one proposed by the union, then it clearly indicates that their demands are not completely outrageous. Even if the answer to that question is NO, that would still influence the decision whether to go ahead with the boycott or not.
As rightly mentioned above, it will help determine whether a precedent has already been set or not. Since we are only looking for the LEAST relevant option, it makes answer choice C more relevant than E.

(E) Do other corporations that own coal companies also own gas stations?
To know whether other corporations that own coal companies also own gas stations is completely irrelevant. Had E stated "Does any other CORPORATION have gas stations in the locality/country/world (though farfetched)" would have made E more relevant than C. Because in that case, knowing that boycotting Gasco would have a significant impact since there would/wouldn't be other gas stations that consumers could go to. But in its current form, E is focusing only on corporations that own coal companies and whether they also own gas stations.

This makes E an obvious choice for me.

Hope it helps.

Hi Experts,
KarishmaB GMATNinja

Why B is incorrect? I understand why E is correct but how to reject B.

(B) Can current Gasco customers easily obtain gasoline elsewhere?

If we want to check the impact of boycott on the acceptance, then B is irrelevant. We are already given a condition that a consumer boycott will happen. The aim is to understand whether such boycott helps the union in proposal acceptance.

In b, we are doubting that whether boycott will happen or not.
If consumer can easily obtain gasoline, then they will boycott the gas station.
If consumer can't easily obtain gasoline, they might not boycott any station.

Please help me understand how B is relevant for given argument.

Thank you!

We are not given that a boycott will happen.

The union leaders are considering a consumer boycott against Gasco gas stations

Also look at the question stem: The answer to which of the following ... relevant to the union leaders’ consideration of whether attempting a boycott of Gasco will lead to acceptance of their contract proposal?

The point is 'what is relevant to their consideration?'

Certainly relevant is whether they can get gas easily from elsewhere. If they can't, then the attempt will be useless because the boycott will likely not be successful. Then the attempt will not lead to acceptance.