The high number of errors made by the company's data-entry operators i

interesting question, though not hard enough for 700+

Official Explanation:

Conclusion: The high number of errors made by the company's data-entry operators is not the fault of the operators themselves.

Premise: The high number of errors resulting from confusing or misreading entry commands occurs, because the programmers who designed the company's data-entry system did not consider the needs of its users.

Assumptions: (1) It’s not a coincidence. It’s not a coincidence that the programmers who designed the company's data-entry system did not consider the needs of its users and that there is a high number of errors made by the company's data-entry operators.

(2) There’s no other cause. Nothing else but the programmers not considering the needs of the users caused the high number of errors made by the company's data-entry operators.

The question stem states that Each one of the following statements about the data-entry program in question, if correct, would reinforce the author's claim EXCEPT, so this is a weaken question. The argument uses a causality reasoning pattern. This can be identified by recognizing that one variable, in this case, that the programmers who designed the company's data-entry system did not consider the needs of its users directly correlates with a specific outcome, in this case, that the high number of errors resulting from confusing or misreading entry commands made by the company's data-entry operators.

The standard assumptions of a causality reasoning pattern are that it is not a coincidence and there’s no other cause. Because this is a weaken question, the correct answer will show that the relationship between The high number of errors resulting from confusing or misreading entry commands, and the fact that the programmers who designed the company's data-entry system did not consider the needs of its users is just a coincidence or that there is another possible cause for the high number of errors resulting from confusing or misreading entry commands. Evaluate the answer choices, looking for a choice that matches one of these ideas.

Choice A: Correct. This choice weakens the argument. If Commands for different functions are initiated by entering dissimilar words, then the high number of errors would be the result of the input by the company's data-entry operators, not that the programmers who designed the company's data-entry system did not consider the needs of its users.

Choice B: No. This answer choice strengthens the argument. If Commands for different functions must be initiated by entering words identical to each other except for the use of capital and small letters, then it is more likely that the high number of errors resulting from confusing or misreading entry commands is caused by programmers who did not consider the needs of users.

Choice C: No. This answer choice strengthens the argument. If The various charts within the program from which operators must obtain information appear on a computer screen at once, with no titles distinguishing one from another, then it is more likely that the high number of errors resulting from confusing or misreading entry commands is caused by programmers who did not consider the needs of users.

Choice D: No. This answer choice strengthens the argument. If Operators must read numbers displayed on the screen in columns and rows of very small type, then it is more likely that the high number of errors resulting from confusing or misreading entry commands is caused by programmers who did not consider the needs of users.

Choice E: No. This answer choice strengthens the argument. If Messages meant to inform the user of various entry options use a wide array of esoteric technical terms, then it is more likely that the high number of errors resulting from confusing or misreading entry commands is caused by programmers who did not consider the needs of users.

The correct answer is choice A.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.