Technician: It is true that the Nebula G10 smartphone is not as

Question

Technician: It is true that the Nebula G10 smartphone is not as valuable as the Outlook M1 smartphone because, on average, insurance companies do not pay as much to replace a lost Nebula G10 as to replace a lost Outlook M1. Repair costs show a different picture though. It can’t be denied that the repairs to Nebula G10 phones are especially labor-intensive and labor is a significant factor in accident repair costs. As a result, the average amount that insurance companies pay to repair a phone under warranty that is damaged by an accident is typically higher for the Nebula G10 than for the Outlook M1.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the technician’s explanation?

A. Reliable statistics show that Outlook M1 phones are more frequently damaged in accidents than Nebula G10 phones are.
B. Outlook M1 phones are considered more economically valuable largely for the ease of repair of the phones.
C. Availability of technicians specializing in the repairs of Nebula G10 is higher than that of technicians specializing in the repairs of Outlook M1.
D. No significant difference exists between the cost of routine upkeep of Outlook M1 and that of Nebula G10.
E. Consumer data indicates that the Nebula G10 phones are returned for defects at a rate greater than that for Outlook M1 phones.

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

atqueaccusantium · Answer

The correct answer is B. The paradox in the text stating first "the Nebula G10 smartphone is not as valuable as the Outlook M1 smartphone" but then stating further down "repairs to Nebula G10 phones are especially labor-intensive and labor is a significant factor in accident repair costs" can be explained by the fact that the Outlook M1 phones are considered valuable exactly because of their ease of repair.

Dereno · Answer

The technician makes a statement that Nebula G10 smartphone is NOT as valuable as Outlook M1 Smartphone. The supporting reasons for that are as follows:

1. If a phone is  LOST , On an average the insurance companies pays  Less for Nebula G10  compared to an Outlook M1 smartphone.

2. When we consider the  Repair costs  : repairs for Nebula G10 is Labour Intensive, and specifically  if it’s an accident repair  - the major chunk of the costs will go to labour only.

In conclusion, if a phone is  under the warranty  coverage period, and in case if  it happens to be an  accident repair  , then the amount paid by insurance companies for Nebula G10 smartphone is extremely high compared to Outlook M1 smartphone.

We need to find an option which supports the technician’s explanation.

A. Reliable statistics show that Outlook M1 phones are more frequently damaged in accidents than Nebula G10 phones are.

If the statistics is reliable, and we cannot disprove its credibility. And the report outcome shows the frequency of damage due to accidents is high for outlook m1 compared to Nebula G10. Which means, the insurance companies need to spend more out from pockets if the phones are covered under warranty. The average cost for Outlook M1 is more compared to Nebula G10. This contradicts the technicians version. Hence, Wrong.

B. Outlook M1 phones are considered more economically valuable largely for the ease of repair of the phones.

If outlook M1 phones are economically valuable when you consider the aspect of ease of repair, this clearly shows that the repair costs incurred for outlook M1 is lesser compared to Nebula G10. This resonates with the technicians claims that the labour costs for outlook M1 is not that high as Nebula G10. Hence, correct answer.

C. Availability of technicians specializing in the repairs of Nebula G10 is higher than that of technicians specializing in the repairs of Outlook M1.

The passage mentions about the labour intensive it might be to repair Nebula G10 and not paucity of labour. Here, the option speaks about availability of technicians for Nebula G10 is greater compared to Outlook M1. Just because labour is available doesn’t mean the cost incurred is low. May be they can be unaffordable due to the technical expertise and precision the repair demands. Hence, Wrong.

D. No significant difference exists between the cost of routine upkeep of Outlook M1 and that of Nebula G10.

Routine upkeep refers to the daily maintenance costs, which depends on the individuals way of handling a product. And this cannot be applied as a blanket rule. Secondly, this aspect is entirely out of scope, and irrelevant to the context. Hence, Wrong.

E. Consumer data indicates that the Nebula G10 phones are returned for defects at a rate greater than that for Outlook M1 phones.

First, we cannot be sure whether the data is accurate or not. Secondly, considering data accuracy, “ returned at greater rate  “ means the number of phones sold and returned back for defects is higher for nebula g10. But, we don’t know if all the products returned are accidental defects, and is it covered under warranty. So many unanswered questions leaves this option to be ignored. Hence, Wrong.

Option B

arushi118 · Answer

It supports the idea that the Outlook M1 is cheaper to repair because it’s easier to fix, which explains why the Nebula G10—though less valuable—costs more to repair due to labor-intensive repairs.

So B is correct.

So B is correct.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

Understand the passage first.

-The replacement value (when lost) of Nebula G10 < replacement value of Outlook M1.
-But repair cost under warranty for accidental damage is higher for Nebula G10 than Outlook M1.

Reason given:  Nebula G10 repairs are especially labor-intensive, and labor is a significant cost factor. So the explanation assumes the higher repair cost for Nebula G10 despite its lower replacement value is because labor is high for G10 repairs. We are asked to strengthen that explanation.

A  Talks about frequency of accidents, not about why repair cost for G10 is higher. Could relate indirectly to labor demand but doesn’t directly support the labor-cost explanation.

B.   “Outlook M1 phones are considered more economically valuable largely for ease of repair.”  This directly contrasts the two: If Outlook M1 is easier to repair, then harder-to-repair Nebula G10 would naturally have higher labor costs. This explains why replacement value (market value) might be lower for G10 (maybe due to lesser materials/features), but in repairs the labor intensity pushes G10’s repair cost above M1’s.

C.  Higher availability of Nebula G10 repair specialists would likely reduce labor cost (more supply means lower price), which would undermine, not support, higher repair cost.

D.  Irrelevant. Routine upkeep cost difference irrelevant to accident repair costs under warranty.

E.  Return for defects rate greater ---> maybe warranty repairs for defects, but the argument is about accidental damage repair costs under warranty, not defect returns.

Answer: B

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Video explanation: 
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fcW4unCGog

Adit_ · Answer

This is way you do not skip the OGs..
There is a question exactly same as this, only the wordings change here I forget.
I believe it was something with another manufacturing as well and the answer being "ease of something is an added factor"

Technician: It is true that the Nebula G10 smartphone is not as

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

Technician: It is true that the Nebula G10 smartphone is not as

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