A shortage of orders for Manto Aircraft's airliners has led analysts

Hi

A is the correct answer choice because it provides the reason which if true could potentially weaken the conclusion.
Since Manto relies on more outside sub-contractors to build Model Z than to build consolidated,the cancellation of the contract for Model Z does not provide a reason to sack it own employess.

Cheers!!

A shortage of orders for Manto Aircraft's airliners has led analysts to predict that the manufacturer will have to lay workers ,the new order that consolidated airlines has just made for 20 of Manto's model TX jets does not provide a reason for the analysts to revise their predictions ,because simultaneously with its new order , consolidated canceled its existing order for an equal number of manto's larger, more expensive model Z jets

which of the following ,if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Manto relies more heavily on outside subcontractors to provide the labor to manufacture the Model Z than it does the Model TX

B. The Manto employees who currently work to manufacture the model Z are Not proficient at manufacturing the model TX

C. Manto includes all required maintenance work for the first five years in the price of each jet it sells .

D. Manto has had to lay off workers several times within the past ten years but has typically rehired many of the workers when it subsequently received new orders

----Why cant the answer be B)
B says "The Manto employees who currently work to manufacture the model Z are Not proficient at manufacturing the model TX "
- ok! so employees can make Z but they cant make TX ..but no more Z to make they only have TX to make . So firing the employees will not help them in any way , because even if they fire them have to rehire some who knows to make TX . Instead they would train existing ones ( for that they would need few trainers) ..so this will lead to hiring . ok! even if not hiring at least it will no lead to job cuts. so the prediction wont hold true.

please help me understand why the above reasoning for B is wrong??
thanks

We have to weaken the conclusion by showing that MANTO will not fire employee.

Your restaurant ( that is not making a lot of profit) is changing its menu from Chinese cuisine to Italian Cuisine. Half of your current chefs are Chinese and don't know how to make Italian cuisine. What is the most possible outcome. YOU MAY FIRE ALL THOSE CHINESE CHEFS BECAUSE A CHINESE CHEF HAS NO USE IN AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT.
Do the remaining italian chef need training. NO- they already know how to make Italian food.

Similarly some of the employee knows how to make model Z (Chinee food ) but they don't know how to make model TX (Italian). Now your contact is to make model TX.(restaurant to make Italian only) . Isn't there a high probability that those who don't know model Z will be fired.
Do you need to HIRE trainers. NO - because your other employees know how to make MODEL -TX. EVEN IF A TRAINER IS NEEDED, ONE OF THESE EMPLOYEES CAN BE MADE A TEMPORARY SUPERVISOR AND TRAINER

TO WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION WE HAVE TO SHOW MANTO AIRLINE WILL NOT FIRE THE EMPLOYEES.

B STILL HAS A POSSIBILITY OF FIRING.


Therefore B is not correct

Hi!The reason I crossed out option E is that E talks about the consolidated airline's fleet which could have been ordered from other manufacturers and is not related to the employee lay off at Manto. Hope it helps.

Can we have some discussion on this one?...

I am not sure why E cannot be the answer?

~M14[/color][/quote]

Prediction - Shortage of orders will lead to lay offs in Manto
Consolidated airline has ordered 20 Model TX jets.
Consolidated has cancelled its previous order of 20 Model Z jets.

Conclusion: The new order by Consolidated Airlines does not provide a reason to revise the prediction.

Basically the argument says that with the new order, nothing has changed since a previous similar order has been cancelled. So people will still be laid off. We need to weaken this.

A. Manto relies more heavily on outside subcontractors to provide the labor to manufacture the Model Z than it does for the Model TX.
This says that making Model Tx is different from making Model Z. Model Z needs more outside subcontractors while Model TX uses more in-house workforce. In we need to make Model Tis now, we will need the in-house workforce and hence lay offs may not happen.
This does weaken our conclusion. The new order may provide a reason for revision of the prediction.

B. The Manto employees who currently work to manufacture the Model Z are not proficient at manufacturing the Model TX.

This gives us a reason why some current workforce may be laid off (and new people hired or subcontractors used). Hence it does not weaken our conclusion.

C. Manto includes all required maintenance work for the first five years in the price of each jet it sells.

Irrelevant.

D. Manto has had to lay off workers several times within the past ten years but has typically rehired many of the workers when it subsequently received new orders.

Again, irrelevant. Will it lay off now or not is the question. Whether it will re-hire, is not relevant.

E. A large number of the airliners in Consolidated’s fleet are at the beginning of their expected service life.

Manto has got an order from Consolidated. Whether there will be more orders or not from Consolidated is irrelevant. We only have to judge the impact of this new order and cancelling of the old on our prediction.
If Consolidated's fleet is new and it is unlikely to give more orders, it doesn't matter. Manto can get orders from other airlines.
If Consolidated's fleet is old and it is likely to buy new planes, it again doesn't matter, It could buy from someone other than Manto.
All in all, the situation of Consolidated's fleet is irrelevant.

Answer (A)

[/quote]

Maintenance can be done by some other company apart from Manto. Hence, Manto should still lose its employees.

I understand why A is correct but what I cannot seem to wrap my head around is why "LAY OFF" that the argument talks about cannot involve subcontractors. How am I able to deduce that it was only referring to lay off of full time workers rather than contractors. The way I see it, if lay off concern as includes laying off contracted workers then A will be incorrect. Please Help!!

Option Elimination - This is a good question from the point of view of a business context. Sometimes, the things on the surface look seamless, but digging a bit deeper is always a good idea. No wonder why CR is so important in a business context. On the surface, this argument looks solid, but when you peel the onion in terms of Models, which is what option A does, it's pretty neat.

Option Elimination -

(A) Manto relies more heavily on outside subcontractors to provide the labor to manufacture the Model Z than it does the Model TX - ok. So we don't need to fire people, which weakens the conclusion.

(B) The Manto employees who currently work to manufacture the model Z are not proficient at manufacturing the model TX - Strengthener.

(C) Manto includes all required maintenance work for the first five years in the price of each jet it sells . - These are normally called annual maintenance contracts and are standard in the manufacturing world but outside the scope of the argument.

(D) Manto has had to lay off workers several times within the past ten years but has typically rehired many of the workers when it subsequently received new orders. Changes the reference point. We are interested in the current and not in the past. The scope of the argument is to weaken the analyst's prediction about firing employees based on the current situation wherein the orders are low, and some C airlines canceled 20 and gave orders for another 20. Distortion.

(E) A large number of the airliners in consolidated is fleet are at the beginning of their expected service life. - C's fleet at the beginning or end of life is irrelevant to the scope of the argument. Out of scope.