We are asked to cast doubt on the CONCLUSION of the argument, not on the efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy, superiority, merits, or legitimacy of CEO’s move. So, let’s first find that conclusion.
Conclusion: it was the ONLY way... – CEO’s move was the ONLY way to avoid bankruptcy.
Reasons: ...because otherwise insolvency would arise, and because no board member offered an alternative.
Possible doubts: was it indeed the ONLY way? Could insolvency be circumvented? What if board members had an alternative but for some reason could not offer it?
With these in mind let’s analyze answer choices:
A. The consequences of the restructuring were actually worse for the company than the fallout of a bankruptcy filing would have been.
An alluring trap: the question to ask ourselves is whether this choice indeed casts any doubt on the conclusion, or whether it implies that CEO’s move was NOT the only way. This choice fails to target the conclusion; instead, it judges the outcome of the move. Unfortunately, we are barely interested in how successful was his plan. All we want to clarify is – was it the only? Wrong choice.
B. There were no alternative courses of action that the company’s entire board failed to consider.
If double negation is stripped off, then we have: “company’s board considered ALL alternative courses of action”. This one seems to strengthen rather than weaken. If all alternatives were scrutinized and in the end CEO’s idea was chosen, then most probably CEO’s idea was the only way to avoid bankruptcy.
C. Some of the actions taken and/or ordered by the CEO during the restructuring were in fact illegal.
Once again, all what we care about is the conclusion that claims “it was the only way”. So, our question is “was it the only?”, not “was it legal?”
This choice fails to target the conclusion and instead, as does A, focuses on other features of CEO’s move. Wong choice.
D. Board members of many companies will avoid offering difficult proposals that may be contrary to those recommended by the CEO.
Bingo, this one is the sole choice that targets our conclusion. This fact alone implies that it’s most likely to be true. Indeed, the choice claims that there may have been some alternatives, but they were not offered. What follows is that CEO’s idea was NOT the only way, and there were other not offered alternatives. So, there was more than one way to avoid bankruptcy. Correct choice.
E. If the company had taken action sooner, the most serious consequences of restructuring would have been avoided.
This choice is not going to say that CEO’s move was NOT the only way. It seems to assume that CEO’s idea was the only way that should have been realized sooner. This choice is not weakener, but a weak strengthener. Wrong choice.
Hence
DPosted from my mobile device _________________