Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 02 Sep 2026, 09:31 |
It is currently 02 Sep 2026, 09:31 |
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0208:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 0301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Aug 2710:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Thought your job leaves no time for GMAT prep? After multiple GMAT attempts and a demanding consulting job, Kshitij improved to 695 in under 2 months. Learn the mindset shifts, study strategy, and execution changes that made the breakthrough possible.
Sep 0410:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
What does test anxiety really look like on the GMAT? For many test takers, it does not look like a panic attack. Instead, it shows up as brain fog, rereading, negative comparisons, mental noise....
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 07
12:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
14 Jul 2026, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
34% (02:06) correct
66%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 308
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Consultant: Cross-functional project teams, those whose members are drawn from multiple departments, are consistently more innovative than teams whose members all work in a single department. Members of a cross-functional team gain firsthand experience using a broad range of mental models and problem-solving heuristics from outside their own department, while being afforded frequent opportunities to observe—and be observed by—colleagues with substantial expertise using those cognitive tools. It is these relationships, along with the breadth of exposure to the tools themselves, that equips the members of cross-functional teams to innovate more widely.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the consultant’s argument?
(A) Companies that regularly use cross-functional teams for product development report higher rates of interdepartmental communication, on average, than similarly structured companies that do not.
(B) Firms in industries characterized by rapid, frequently disruptive technological change are more likely to use cross-functional teams than are firms in industries that have evolved more gradually over time.
(C) On metrics that gauge innovation, teams drawn from multiple departments generally do not outperform single-department teams with a comparable breadth of combined educational and work experience.
(D) Teams drawn from a single department that are given regular briefings on problem-solving models and heuristics used in the employer’s other departments are no more innovative on average than teams from a single department that receive no such briefings.
(E) Teams made up of members who have previously worked in more than one of the employer’s departments are significantly more innovative than teams whose members have only worked in one such department.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the consultant’s argument?
(A) Companies that regularly use cross-functional teams for product development report higher rates of interdepartmental communication, on average, than similarly structured companies that do not.
(B) Firms in industries characterized by rapid, frequently disruptive technological change are more likely to use cross-functional teams than are firms in industries that have evolved more gradually over time.
(C) On metrics that gauge innovation, teams drawn from multiple departments generally do not outperform single-department teams with a comparable breadth of combined educational and work experience.
(D) Teams drawn from a single department that are given regular briefings on problem-solving models and heuristics used in the employer’s other departments are no more innovative on average than teams from a single department that receive no such briefings.
(E) Teams made up of members who have previously worked in more than one of the employer’s departments are significantly more innovative than teams whose members have only worked in one such department.
|
⚠️ Important: GMAT Club does not allow AI-generated posts. AI-generated solutions are not eligible for kudos, and users who post them may face moderation action, including a ban.
V26-53
14 Jul 2026, 09:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
GMAT Club Official Explanation
The consultant opens with an interesting fact: cross-functional teams (teams with members from more than one of their employer’s departments) are consistently more innovative than teams that are not cross-functional (with members all from one department). The consultant asserts that there are two causes that combine to produce the extra innovativeness of cross-functional teams: /i/ the hands-on work that team members do with the mental models and problem-solving heuristics from departments other than their own, and /ii/ the working relationships that develop between team members who are expert users of various models/heuristics and those who are just becoming acquainted with those tools.
If a phenomenon has two joint causes—which must act together to produce the result under discussion—then the phenomenon should obtain when both of those causes are in effect, but should not obtain if only one of the two causes is in effect.
We know from the passage that the stated effect (a boost to the innovative powers of employees who work on cross-functional teams) DOES accrue to team members who experience both /i/ and /ii/ above. It remains to show that /i/ and /ii/ are genuinely joint causes—i.e., that the team members don't just reap their extra innovative acumen from one or the other—so the correct answer should assert that extra innovativeness does NOT accrue to employees for whom only one of /i/ and /ii/ is true.
It's impossible for /ii/ but not /i/ to be true (the employees can't build working relationships around diverse cognitive tools if they aren't exposed to those tools in the first place!), so in effect we have a 'formula' for the correct answer: It should show that the stated effect does NOT obtain if ONLY /i/ is true, i.e., that employees who are exposed to a variety of models/heuristics WITHOUT the added benefit of working relationships with experienced/expert teammates DO NOT become more innovative on average.
The choice that fits this formula is (D). In the briefings described in (D), team members get the exposure to various models and heuristics WITHOUT collaborating closely with colleagues who have expertise with those tools. That these employees do not, in fact, become any more innovative as a result of that exposure alone greatly strengthens the consultant's conclusion that the innovation boost is a joint effect.
INCORRECT ANSWERS:
(A) This answer choice does not discuss differential levels of innovation, so it is irrelevant. (Moreover, the phenomenon that the consultant seeks to explain is observed at the level of teams; this choice, on the other hand, mentions a phenomenon that’s observed at the whole-company level.)
(B) This answer choice contains nothing related to individual innovativeness or its proposed catalysts, so it is irrelevant.
(C) states that if we control for the aggregate breadth of experience held by the team members collectively, then cross-functionality actually has no effect on innovativeness. If this is the case then the actual cause of increased innovativeness greater aggregate breadth of work experience across the team as a whole—NOT cross-functionality, which is merely a confounding variable—and so consultant's argument is proved wrong.
(E) The situation described here—in which individual team members have histories with multiple departments at their company—is something altogether different from the phenomenon of cross-functional teams that the consultant names as the cause of extra innovative power, so this choice cannot speak to the consultant’s hypothesis. (This situation is not a proxy for cross-functionality as defined by the consultant. It’s entirely possible for the latter type of team mentioned here—comprising employees who have each worked only in a single department—to span more departments overall than the former type of team.)
The correct answer is (D).
General Discussion
14 Jul 2026, 08:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
Answer: D)
Consultant's Argument: Cross functional teams are more innovative than single department teams because they get exposure to more varied techniques and the chance to observe and be observed by p
A) How beneficial interdepartmental teams are to communication is not being argued -> INCORRECT
B) Irrelevant -> INCORRECT
C) Weakens -> INCORRECT
D) If the single department teams with briefings on varied techniques aren't noticeably more innovative than those single department teams that don't, then it strengthens the idea that the exposure to the team makes them more innovative -> CORRECT
E) This is almost repeating the argument from a slightly different standpoint, doesn't strengthen -> INCORRECT
Consultant's Argument: Cross functional teams are more innovative than single department teams because they get exposure to more varied techniques and the chance to observe and be observed by p
A) How beneficial interdepartmental teams are to communication is not being argued -> INCORRECT
B) Irrelevant -> INCORRECT
C) Weakens -> INCORRECT
D) If the single department teams with briefings on varied techniques aren't noticeably more innovative than those single department teams that don't, then it strengthens the idea that the exposure to the team makes them more innovative -> CORRECT
E) This is almost repeating the argument from a slightly different standpoint, doesn't strengthen -> INCORRECT
14 Jul 2026, 08:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
This was a confusing one for me. No very apparently correct options that I could spot. So I tried using elimination. I came up with D as an answer. Not sure if it is correct though. Here is my process-
Option A: While this does make a case for cross-functional teams, it talks about the benefit of cross-functional (CF) teams to increase interdepartmental communication. It does not really talk about increase in innovation as talked about in the conclusion. So I chose to eliminate this.
Option B: This talks more about firms in a specifically characterized industry. While those firms who are in industries that have fast paced innovation are more likely to be using CF, it does not actually prove that the CF teams are making the firm innovate better. I chose to eliminate this as there is a faulty cause-effect relationship that is being established here.
Option C: This is weakening the conclusion clearly. It says the CF teams are not observed to be better performing on innovation than single department teams. This is directly opposite of what the conclusion is. Hence, eliminate.
Option D: This one did not seem to be the correct option on the first reading honestly. However, it was between this and option E, and this fit the bill better. This tells us that even if we gave single department teams the access to the tools that generally make CF teams better at innovations, they still tend to not perform better than other single department teams. This shows us that the CF teams are actually inherently better in some way. Hence, it actually supports the conclusion. I went for this after eliminating E.
Option E: This talks more about the background of a specific individual. It does not really compare CF teams to single department teams. A single/few individuals might have worked in a different department in the past. It does not mean that they would be able to bring in the same core skills and tools that make CF teams better as per the stem. Hence, I chose to eliminate this.
Option A: While this does make a case for cross-functional teams, it talks about the benefit of cross-functional (CF) teams to increase interdepartmental communication. It does not really talk about increase in innovation as talked about in the conclusion. So I chose to eliminate this.
Option B: This talks more about firms in a specifically characterized industry. While those firms who are in industries that have fast paced innovation are more likely to be using CF, it does not actually prove that the CF teams are making the firm innovate better. I chose to eliminate this as there is a faulty cause-effect relationship that is being established here.
Option C: This is weakening the conclusion clearly. It says the CF teams are not observed to be better performing on innovation than single department teams. This is directly opposite of what the conclusion is. Hence, eliminate.
Option D: This one did not seem to be the correct option on the first reading honestly. However, it was between this and option E, and this fit the bill better. This tells us that even if we gave single department teams the access to the tools that generally make CF teams better at innovations, they still tend to not perform better than other single department teams. This shows us that the CF teams are actually inherently better in some way. Hence, it actually supports the conclusion. I went for this after eliminating E.
Option E: This talks more about the background of a specific individual. It does not really compare CF teams to single department teams. A single/few individuals might have worked in a different department in the past. It does not mean that they would be able to bring in the same core skills and tools that make CF teams better as per the stem. Hence, I chose to eliminate this.
