balaji4799 wrote:
souvonik2k wrote:
The company Straffkey guarantees in its contracts with clients that for every ten computer programmers employed by Straffkey on a client project, Staffkey will employ at least one certified project manager. Since many of Straffkey's contracts are with the nation's government, its business increases during economic recessions, when the government spends more, and it has to hire more computer programmers at these times to complete its contracts. Therefore, while many jobs are threatened by economic recessions, the prospects of being hired as a project manager at Straffkey will not be lessened by the state of the economy as a whole.
Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?
A) Whether Straffkey's competitors bid to complete Straffkey's targeted government contracts at lower cost, especially during economic recessions
B) Whether the number of certified project managers applying for positions at Straffkey increases significantly during economic recessions
C) The requirements for certification as a project manager for the purposes of hiring at Straffkey
D) The changes in workforce size at Straffkey upon the completion of large contracts
E) Whether in the past a Straffkey has always honored its contractual computer programmer-to-project manager ratio
Source-Gmatfree
I don’t understand the OA, the guarantee that the argument offers has got nothing to do with the number of job applications that the company receives it is however dependent on whether the company honours its contractual obligation even during the time of crisis
So IMO E
Posted from my mobile devicePosted from my mobile deviceHi
This is the official explanation given:
In the conclusion, the phrase "never lessened" looks most vulnerable. The language pertaining to time on the left is "during recessions," which is a lot shorter than "never" or "always." Could the prospects somehow be only temporary? For example, when the economy recovered, the government spent less, Straffkey had to get rid of programmers, and then also PMs. Then the conclusion would be false, because hiring would be lessened the state of the economy. We have a filter "hiring during recessions is temporary."
Applying the filter: (B) and (D) both match our filter. Choice (E) discusses only whether it has honored the contract in the past, whereas the conclusion concerns the future.
Logical proof: we can analyze (B) and (D) by cases. In (B), if Staffkey were mobbed with applicants during recessions, that mobbing could outweigh their increased demand for PM's, hurting the argument. And if, somehow, fewer people applied, that would strength the argument. So (B) looks quite good. We consider extreme cases for (D). Say after large contracts, tons of people get laid off. That doesn't quite impact the argument, because we have no information on whether Straffkey's contracts are always or even generally completed under specific economic conditions, which is the key condition of the argument. So (D) is out. The correct answer is (B).
_________________
Please give kudos, if you like my post
When the going gets tough, the tough gets going...
close
51% (01:38) correct 
