craky
The CEO of Black’s International has proposed replacing their Marmacil semiconductor manufacturing equipment with Fasttech equipment since it costs 30 percent less to train new staff on the Fasttech equipment. Those opposed to the change have pointed out the savings in training cost does not justify the change. Instead, they suggested that the company hire only people who already know how to use the Marmacil equipment.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the objection to the replacement of Marmacil semiconductor manufacturing equipment with Fasttechs?
(A) Currently all employees in the company are required to attend workshops on how to use Marmacil semiconductor manufacturing equipment in new applications.
(B) Once employees learn how to use semiconductor-manufacturing equipment, they tend to change employers more readily than before.
(C) Experienced users of Marmacil equipment command much higher salaries than do prospective employees who have no experience in the use of such equipment.
(D) The average productivity of employees in the general manager's company is below the average productivity of the employees of its competitors.
(E) The high costs of replacement parts make Marmacil computers more expensive to maintain than Fasttech semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
This is a pretty tricky question from old gmat test.
CEO - Replace M with F because training staff for F is 30% cheaper
Opposers of replacement (objection to replacement) - Not justified. Just hire people who already know M.
We need to undermine the objection. We need to undermine "Not justified. Just hire people who already know M."
Why is the replacement not justified? Why can we not just hire people who already know M?
(A) Currently all employees in the company are required to attend workshops on how to use Marmacil semiconductor manufacturing equipment in new applications.
Does not tell us why the change is not justified. Why we cannot just hire people who already know M.
(B) Once employees learn how to use semiconductor-manufacturing equipment, they tend to change employers more readily than before.
True for both M and F. Does not tell us why change is not justified. Does not tell us why hiring people who already know M is not justified.
(C) Experienced users of Marmacil equipment command much higher salaries than do prospective employees who have no experience in the use of such equipment.
Hiring people who already know M is much more expensive. So the logic of the opposers doesn't work. Then it probably makes sense to hire people at cheaper cost and train them for F. So this does undermine the objection to replacement.
(D) The average productivity of employees in the general manager's company is below the average productivity of the employees of its competitors.
Irrelevant to the argument.
(E) The high costs of replacement parts make Marmacil computers more expensive to maintain than Fasttech semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
Note that we have to undermine the objection of the opposers. Their logic is that we should just hire people who already know M. Then training cost would be irrelevant. This option does not undermine that. The cost of part replacement is not a part of the argument. Perhaps part replacement is more expensive in M but perhaps F needs more frequent replacements - we don't know. Hence this is irrelevant.
Also, I doubt that "Marmacil computers" and "Marmacil semiconductor manufacturing equipment" are meant to be different things. It just doesn't make good sense. What is the source of this question?
Answer (C)