Massive layoffs are expected to happen if the VP of Finance is

Question

Massive layoffs are expected to happen if the VP of Finance is promoted as the CEO of Transcorp. The company is likely to be split if the VP of Operations is promoted to CEO instead. The VP of Finance and the VP of Operations are the only two strong contenders from within Transcorp for the CEO position.

Given the statements in the passage, which one of the following statements must be true?

(A) Transcorp will certainly have to face either massive layoffs or a split. 
(B) If massive layoffs happen at Transcorp, the VP of Finance would have become its CEO. 
(C) If massive layoffs do not happen, then the VP of Operations would have become the CEO of Transcorp. 
(D) If both massive layoffs and a split happen, then the CEO of Transcorp would be neither the VP of Finance nor the VP of Operations. 
(E) It is possible that Transcorp will neither see massive layoffs nor be split.

zeeshankhan1608 · Answer

According to me, the answer option could be either C or E ( E most likely)

Here is the reason :-

Question stimulus doesn't use the words like SHOULD or MUST. Everywhere it says probably.

Hence

(C) INCORRECT because it says negator massive layoff implies CEO SHOULD BE VP OPERATIONS. However, it is only probable or possible.

(E) CORRECT as it uses the word POSSIBLE.

Posted from my mobile device

Bangravi2711 · Answer

According to me , the correct answer should be option A . Because here we are presented with the possibilities of VP of Finance or Operation to become the CEO of Transcorp Co. But here we have the asuurance that these two are the ONLY strong contenders of the position of the CEO of the Co. So it can be either of them getting (or probably being) selected as the CEO . We cannot tilt on any of the sides (of Operations or Finance ) , contenders of becoming the CEO . It can be any of them. 
So what is assured in this case , and what can be properly inferred , is either of them becoming or the event happening( i.e layoffs or splits).

gmat1102 · Answer

Question Type - Inference

Fact 1: VP(F) becomes CEO - Effect 1
Fact 2: VP(O) becomes CEO - Effect 2
Fact 3: CEO Contenders from within the org. are VP(F) and VP(O)

For Inference questions, the answer choice must be true.
(A) Transcorp will certainly have to face either massive layoffs or a split. 
Here the author will have to assume that someone from the organization becomes a CEO.

(B) If massive layoffs happen at Transcorp, the VP of Finance would have become its CEO. 
If VP(F) becomes CEO -> Layoffs is the effect.

Other way round, is not true.

(C) If massive layoffs do not happen, then the VP of Operations would have become the CEO of Transcorp. 
Same as B.

(D) If both massive layoffs and a split happen, then the CEO of Transcorp would be neither the VP of Finance nor the VP of Operations. 
Information is not provided to support this.

(E) It is possible that Transcorp will neither see massive layoffs nor be split.
Fact3 supports this option and hence the answer.

raunakd11 · Answer

Hello BenCrackVerbal,
Kindly help me understand this.
I am stuck between Opts A and E

Thanks

AshutoshB · Answer

Hi raunakd11, I thought I can help you in understanding the split (A) Transcorp will certainly have to face either massive layoffs or a split. INCORRECT because if you look carefully at the words you will find the disguised word "The VP of Finance and the VP of Operations are the only two strong contenders from within Transcorp for the CEO position" Based on the above-highlighted word( Within) it means the company is not excluding the possibility that CEO might be from outside the Transcrop, it is saying that these two people are the only contender from within the company (E) It is possible that Transcorp will neither see massive layoffs nor be split. CORRECT DM if you have any queries.I would love to help

GMAT0010 · Answer

Hi, From the above: 1. Layoffs->VP F becomes CEO 2.Split-> VPO becomes CEO There's something very subtle in this argument: These two are the ones within the company. So what if the company hires someone outside of the company? Going through the options: Option A: Too easy.. Very obvious.. It's a trap. Option B: Correlation does not lead to causality Option C:Similar to B Option D: Eliminate this. If we negate this, the argument will not break. Option E: This fits!! Hope this helps!

NikhilST · Answer

Hello

A) Option A talks about a certainty. The two candidates mentioned are the 'ONLY TWO STRONG CANDIDATES'. Now, this does not mean they are the ONLY two candidates. Now this makes it very difficult to predict what might happen if a third (less likely) candidate wins! Hence, eliminate A.
B) I think the word EXPECTED plays a massive role here. It is, once again, not a certainty that the layoffs will happen VP (F) becomes the CEO. Hence, eliminate B.
C) There is a word in the argument 'LIKELY'. Same reasoning to eliminate C as mentioned in B.
D) This we cannot be sure, maybe VP (F) goes nuts and does both, or vice-versa.
E) POE got me here. Plus the above reasons should suffice one to get to this point.

Hope my explanation helps!

Axwe7 · Answer

MartyMurray , would you be able to verify my logic to eliminate option A) in this example?

Option A) is unlikely to be correct here since the question stem uses low modality - i.e., "likely to be split" or "layoffs are expected", whereas option A) talks about "certainty".

If something is "likely to be split", it doesn't guarantee that it'll be split. So you can't be certain it'll split.
If something is "expected" to happen, it doesn't guarantee it'll happen. So you can't be certain it'll happen.

Hence, "certainty" cannot be established, and thus, you can eliminate option A).

guddo · Answer

Massive layoffs are expected to happen if the VP of Finance is promoted as the CEO of Transcorp. The company is likely to be split if the VP of Operations is promoted to CEO instead. The VP of Finance and the VP of Operations are the only two strong contenders from within Transcorp for the CEO position. 
 
Given the statements in the passage, which one of the following statements must be true?

The passage gives only likely or expected outcomes, not guaranteed outcomes. Also, it says the two VPs are the only strong internal contenders, but it does not say that one of them must definitely become CEO.  So the passage leaves open the possibility  that  neither massive layoffs nor a split happens .

(A) Transcorp will certainly have to face either massive layoffs or a split.

This is too strong. The passage says layoffs are expected and a split is likely, not certain.

(B) If massive layoffs happen at Transcorp, the VP of Finance would have become its CEO.

This reverses the logic. The passage says layoffs are expected if the VP of Finance becomes CEO, not that layoffs can happen only if the VP of Finance becomes CEO.

(C) If massive layoffs do not happen, then the VP of Operations would have become the CEO of Transcorp.

This is not supported. Massive layoffs might not happen even if the VP of Finance becomes CEO, since they are only expected, not guaranteed.

(D) If both massive layoffs and a split happen, then the CEO of Transcorp would be neither the VP of Finance nor the VP of Operations.

This is not supported. The passage does not say the two outcomes are mutually exclusive.

(E) It is possible that Transcorp will neither see massive layoffs nor be split.

This is correct. Since the outcomes are described only as expected or likely, and since the CEO could possibly be someone other than those two internal contenders, the passage allows this possibility.

Answer: (E)

MartyMurray · Answer

That reasoning works perfectly, partly because this is a "must be true" question. So, the correct answer has to state something that must be true given what the passage says, and as you've outlined, the passage doesn't support the certainty of (A).

Massive layoffs are expected to happen if the VP of Finance is

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Massive layoffs are expected to happen if the VP of Finance is

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