Sure Enough Insurance is a large insurance company that has recently

Question

Sure Enough Insurance is a large insurance company that has recently been experiencing financial difficulties. Claims are handled by claims coordinators who determine how much, if at all, Sure Enough must pay a policy holder who has made a claim. The aforementioned financial difficulties are forcing Sure Enough to fire 25% of its claims coordinators. To minimize the potentially harmful effects of these cuts, it is recommended that Sure Enough lay off coordinators whose average time of completing work on their assigned claims is the longest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the argument's conclusion?

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the argument's conclusion?

(A) No insurance payments are made by Sure Enough until a claims coordinator has completed work on the claim.

(B) Other departments in Sure Enough Insurance do not have any job vacancies.

(C) A significant increase in the amount of time it takes Sure Enough claims coordinators to complete work on claims could result in Sure Enough's loss of business to competitors.

(D) Sure Enough's policy is to assign complex and lengthy claims to the most competent coordinators.

(E) There is no significant difference between the premiums Sure Enough currently charges and those charged by its competitors.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

paragw · Answer

The argument concludes that Sure Enough should lay off claims coordinators who take the longest average time to complete their work in order to minimize harmful effects of layoffs. To seriously call this conclusion into question, we want to find an answer choice that undermines the assumption that laying off the slowest coordinators will reduce negative impacts.

(A) No insurance payments are made until a claims coordinator completes the work. 
This supports the argument because it highlights the importance of timely completion. It does not weaken the conclusion.

(B) Other departments have no vacancies. 
This is irrelevant to the argument about which coordinators to lay off.

(C) A significant increase in claims processing time could cause loss of business to competitors. 
This supports the argument because slow coordinators could harm the company more.

(D) Complex and lengthy claims are assigned to the most competent coordinators. 
This seriously questions the conclusion. If the slowest coordinators handle the hardest claims because of their competence, laying them off would remove the best coordinators, potentially harming the company.

(E) No significant difference in premiums compared to competitors. 
This is unrelated to the specific argument about layoffs based on claim processing time.

Thus, answer  (D)  most strongly calls into question the argument's conclusion by suggesting that faster coordinators might simply handle easier claims, and firing the slowest (most competent) coordinators could be harmful.

Dereno · Answer

Sure Enough Insurance company (SEIC) has been facing financial difficulties in the recent years, SEIC is liable to pay the claim amount, and the claims are done by claim coordinators.

The claim is forcing SEIC to fire 25% of its claim coordinators. To minimize potential harmful effects of these cuts, they concluded : “ Sure Enough lay off coordinators whose average time of completing work on their assigned claims is the longest .”

What weakens the conclusion ? 
 
(A) No insurance payments are made by Sure Enough until a claims coordinator has completed work on the claim.

Option A is a factual statement, and this doesn’t weaken the conclusion of laying off coordinators whose claim hour is longest. Hence , wrong

(B) Other departments in Sure Enough Insurance do not have any job vacancies.

Option B which speaks about the job vacancies of other departments is no where related to weakening of the conclusion. Hence, wrong.

(C) A significant increase in the amount of time it takes Sure Enough claims coordinators to complete work on claims could result in Sure Enough's loss of business to competitors.

Option C which explains the amount of time taken to make a claim may impact or may not Imapct the business. Moreover, this doesn’t relate to firing of claim coordinators. And, this doesn’t weaken the conclusion. Hence, wrong.

(D) Sure Enough's policy is to assign complex and lengthy claims to the most competent coordinators.

Option D is correct, because the competent claim coordinators are assigned lengthy claims which obviously takes a greater amount of time compared to the rest. If, the claim coordinators with lengthy average times are expelled then, the competent claim coordinators would be sent out eventually. Thus, this weakens the claim.

(E) There is no significant difference between the premiums Sure Enough currently charges and those charged by its competitors

Option E mentions the charges charged by competitors vs the SEIC has no significant difference. But, the conclusion is based on the time taken and firing of coordinators who have the longest claim time. Hence, this is irrelevant to the weakening of conclusions. Hence, wrong.

Option D

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Sure Enough Insurance is a large insurance company that has recently been experiencing financial difficulties. Claims are handled by claims coordinators who determine how much, if at all, Sure Enough must pay a policy holder who has made a claim. The aforementioned financial difficulties are forcing Sure Enough to fire 25% of its claims coordinators. To minimize the potentially harmful effects of these cuts, it is recommended that Sure Enough lay off coordinators whose average time of completing work on their assigned claims is the longest.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the argument's conclusion?

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the argument's conclusion?

(A) No insurance payments are made by Sure Enough until a claims coordinator has completed work on the claim.

Incorrect.

This is a Boldface Type question, in which you are required to define the role of the two boldface sections in the argument. Read the argument and break it down using indicative words:

Sentence 1 is a premise because it cites a general fact about Sure Enough Insurance.  
  Sentence 2 , the first boldface portion, is also a premise since it gives us data about how Sure Enough operates.  
  Sentence 3 is a premise telling us that Sure Enough must fire employees  
  The second boldface portion is the argument's conclusion as it is a recommendation (recommend) how to solve the problem presented by the argument's premises.   
 
This answer choice is appealing because it uses the word claim, which also appears in the first portion in boldface type. However, the first portion in boldface type is not a claim at all, it's a premise. Therefore, its accuracy is not an issue. We consider premises to be completely accurate facts.

(B) Other departments in Sure Enough Insurance do not have any job vacancies.

Incorrect.

The first portion in boldface type is indeed evidence, but it doesn't challenge the argument's conclusion since it doesn't weaken or in any way oppose it. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.

(C) A significant increase in the amount of time it takes Sure Enough claims coordinators to complete work on claims could result in Sure Enough's loss of business to competitors.

Incorrect.

The first part of this answer choice is wordy and complicated. Instead of trying to figure it out, it is easier and quicker to go on and read the second part of the answer choice. Eliminating this answer choice on the basis of its second part is a lot simpler and easier: the second portion in boldface type is not an explanation. It is the argument's conclusion in the form of a recommendation.

(D) Sure Enough's policy is to assign complex and lengthy claims to the most competent coordinators.

The argument tells a story about Sure Enough Insurance and its problem, a part of which is the first boldface portion. The second boldface portion concludes the argument by presenting the consultants' solution to the problem.

(E) There is no significant difference between the premiums Sure Enough currently charges and those charged by its competitors.

Incorrect.

The first boldface portion is not the argument's conclusion. It is a simple fact about Sure Enough Insurance and is, therefore, one of the argument's premises. You can immediately eliminate answer choices that incorrectly define the first boldface part; do not waste time reading the rest.

Sure Enough Insurance is a large insurance company that has recently

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Sure Enough Insurance is a large insurance company that has recently

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards