Does it benefit a company overall to invest in employee training?

Question

(1) Companies that invest in comprehensive employee training programs often observe improved job performance among their workforce.

(2) Well-trained employees are likely to excel in their roles and take the company forward.

Gemmie · Accepted Answer

Statement (1): Companies that invest in comprehensive employee training programs often observe improved job performance among their workforce. This statement suggests a correlation between investment in training and improved job performance. Improved job performance can lead to higher productivity, better quality of work, and potentially increased profits, which benefits the company overall. However, it does not address that explicitly.

Statement (1) alone is not sufficient.

Statement (2): Well-trained employees are likely to excel in their roles and take the company forward.

This statement suggests that well-trained employees are likely (but not guaranteed) to excel and contribute positively to the company's progress. The use of "likely" implies a strong probability but not certainty.

Statement (2) alone is not sufficient.

Combining Statements (1) and (2): 
- Statement (1) indicates improved job performance with training investment.
- Statement (2) suggests that this improvement is likely to result in employees excelling and advancing the company.

Together, these statements build a stronger case that investing in employee training leads to improved performance, which is likely to drive the company forward. However, they still do not provide a clear or certain answer about the overall benefits to the company.

=> Even combined, still insufficient

Answer is E

KarishmaB · Answer

The question asks us whether there is an "overall benefit" to the company.

The two statements give two benefits but do not comment on whether overall there is benefit. What if trained employees leave the company very soon because they find higher paying work outside. Then overall, the company may not benefit. We don't know.

Hence answer here is (E).

guddo · Answer

OE from the guide: https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=82789 GMAT-Club-Forum-ubz4n2px.png

sayan640 · Answer

Both option A and B are not sufficient is because we dont know for how long the improved job performance will continue to benefit the company overall and how much that benefit will be w.r.t to the cost incurred . Is it correct  KarishmaB   MartyMurray  ?

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, overall benefit means that whatever cost was invested in the training, that and more is recovered. But say if people leave immeditaely after training because they become skilled and hence valued by other companies too, overall the company training them may not be recovering their cost even. Or it is even possible that even if people stay, the training is so expensive that it doesn't lead to overall benefit.

SirSanguine · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB  thanks for the answer; can you also suggest what can be a potentially correct statement? My doubt is..any statement would have to say explicitly " Over all benefits"; or something like "increased realised profits" to be a correct statement. The correct statement shall contain clear declaration, which makes this a easy question. Or is it possible to imply the same without saying it explicitly?

KarishmaB · Answer

The point is what is missing - and whether you were able to identify that. They will not give the exact words because yes, that question would become too easy but for it to be sufficient we certainly need something that implies that overall benefit is there, e.g. something that says that cost to the company is negligible etc.
They will rather miss a word and then see whether you were able to figure out what is missing.

Krunaal · Answer

How I would go about in such a question is - think a one pro and one con hypothetically (1) Companies that invest in comprehensive employee training programs often observe improved job performance among their workforce. Pro - What if the improved job performance will increase companies profits? The investment would be worth, it will possibly benefit the company. Con - What if the improved job performance was not able to offset the cost the company invested in training

=> no overall benefit to company We don't have a conclusive answer. INSUFFICIENT (2) Well-trained employees are likely to excel in their roles and take the company forward. Pro - What if the taking the company forward meant increase in companies' profits? The investment would be worth, it will possibly benefit the company. Con - What if the the company did go forward in terms of efficiency but still that was not able to offset the cost the company invested in training

=> no overall benefit to company We don't have a conclusive answer. INSUFFICIENT Both Together Even if we combine both the statements, we can see that the judgement on whether it was beneficial for company to invest still remains clouded; and we don't have a conclusive answer. INSUFFICIENT Answer E.

AT1982 · Answer

Company - employee trg - overall benefit (Overall benefit means monetary, can be evaluate. For example, $1 mn for employee trg , overall benefit - more than overall investment)

A. Incr job performance - maybe sufficient/ not adequate to cross the profit margin. Maybe beneficial but extra expenditure can be reduced or dveloped in-house. THE TERM OFTEN(*) BUT NOT ALWAYS
B. Selected only excel, balance we don't. ONLY WELL TRAINED(*) BUT NOT ALL
A&B. Again selected excel with adequate imrovement but not sufficient. Maybe the trg was abroad/outside, sufficient absence of employee affected budget planning.

D3N0 · Answer

I Wasn't expecting CR questions on the DS part of the GMAT. 
lol

pappal · Answer

trick in the question is "often" and "likely" mentioned that create doubt in both statements taken individually or together that there will be an overall profit for the company.

SundayRoast · Answer

The OG explanation for this question is directly contradictory to this question. https://gmatclub.com/forum/it-has-been- ... l#p3537057

saynchalk · Answer

Tip for non math related DS questions: terms like "Likely" and "may" are indicators that whatever it is, it doesn't apply to the current situation.

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  MartyMurray   KarishmaB   GMATNinja ,

(2) Well-trained employees are likely to excel in their roles and take the company forward.

I need some clarification on statement (2), is the word  "likely"  meant for both  excel in their roles  and  take the company forward   OR only  for  excel in their roles.

If yes, then can we say that (2) is not sufficient because it is likely, not a certainty?
If no, then (2) should be sufficient right? Because   take the company forward   becomes a certainty and it means that company is progressing, hence, an overall benefit.

Please help me with these two questions.

KarishmaB · Answer

Even without 'likely,' 2 is not sufficient. We want to know whether OVERALL the company benefits. 
If the company must invest $10 million in employee training and makes only $5 million because of well trained employees, does the company benefit overall?
If the company invests $1 million to train 500 employees and 400 of them leave the company immediately after training, does the company benefit overall?
There are many ifs and buts to reach the 'overall benefit' conclusion.

Robo_123 · Answer

my 2 cents on this one - overall benefit would also include finances, right? what if the cost they put to train them is way too high compared to the goodness it brings. Hence, there are caveats that the company needs to take care of.

kdipayan · Answer

Is this on the same line as Correlation is not Causality!

nullatempora · Answer

I have to disagree with all of the expert justifications here. Those justification all come from knowing the right answer and trying to fit the justification within the box set by the official answer. Taken on its own merit however, the official answer is simply wrong, or the wording of the question is poor. What about "moving the company forward" does not imply that there iss overall benefit? if the negatives were more than the benefits the company would move backwards or at most stay in place. How do you move forward if you haven't benefited overall?

XLmafia21 · Answer

i thought in the same lines but then the word 'likely' in the second statement bothered me and hence I went ahead with E. The question asks a certain 'whether investing benefit or not?'. Now can you say a certain 'yes, investing in training benefits.' given statement 2 presents a likelihood however strong it might be.

Does it benefit a company overall to invest in employee training?

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 Data Sufficiency (DS) Questions

Does it benefit a company overall to invest in employee training?

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