Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from independent suppliers

Question

Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from independent suppliers products or services that a company previously provided for itself. Some analysts maintain that since  the goal of any company is to maximize its profit , a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost.  This very goal, however, could require a company to make the opposite decision.  Companies that outsource generally dismantle some of their capabilities. In so doing, they might make themselves totally dependent on just a few outside suppliers. Since the outsourcing companies do not control the priorities of those suppliers, the continuity of supply and thus of their own operations could be threatened. Thus, a company’s long-term profitability might be better protected by not outsourcing.

In the argument given, the  two boldfaced portions  play which of the following roles?

A. The first presents a generalization whose accuracy the argument calls into question; the second presents that generalization in a revised version that the argument concludes is correct.
B. The first presents a generalization that the argument criticizes as too sweeping; the second identifies potential exceptions to that generalization.
C. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a position concerning those implications that is criticized in the argument.
D. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a statement of the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first is a general principle that the argument seeks to show is unsound; the second is the main criticism of that principle raised inthe argument.

bb · Answer

Here is a shot:

1. the goal of any company is to maximize its profit 
- This is a fact/premise.

2. This very goal, however, could require a company to make the opposite decision 
- This portion is a description of a complexity/complication or exception to the basic rule basically.

A. The first presents a generalization whose accuracy the argument calls into question; the second presents that generalization in a revised version that the argument concludes is correct.
 
 The first one is not OK, as it is not being called into question. The second is not a generalization. It would be the opposite. Eliminate.

B. The first presents a generalization that the argument criticizes as too sweeping; the second identifies potential exceptions to that generalization.
 
 First is not OK but the argument does not criticize it. Second is OK. This is close. 
 
C. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a position concerning those implications that is criticized in the argument.
 
 The first one is OK; the second one not OK as no criticizing is taking place.

D. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a statement of the main conclusion of the argument.
 
 The first one is Ok. The second one is kind of OK. It is the best one yet but not perfect.

E. The first is a general principle that the argument seeks to show is unsound; the second is the main criticism of that principle raised in the argument.
 
 First one is not OK. There is nothing to show unsound, rather expand/explain. The second is not OK.

tgsankar10 · Answer

BF1:    the goal of any company is to maximize its profit

BF2:    This very goal, however, could require a company to make the opposite decision.

A.  The first presents a generalization whose accuracy the argument calls into question; the second presents that generalization in a revised version that the argument concludes is correct.

BF1  The goal is not questioned in the argument.   NOT CORRECT

B.  The first presents a generalization that the argument criticizes as too sweeping; the second identifies potential exceptions to that generalization.

BF1  The goal is not criticized in the argument.   NOT CORRECT

C.  The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a position concerning those implications that is criticized in the argument.

BF1  The implications of achieving the goal are discussed. The implications are outsourcing could threaten company's operations.   CORRECT  
 BF2  There is no criticism discussed in the argument.   NOT CORRECT

D.  The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a statement of the main conclusion of the argument.

BF1  The implications of achieving the goal are discussed. The implications are outsourcing could threaten company's operations.   CORRECT  
 BF2  This is the main conclusion of the argument. All the statements following the  BF2  are supporting this.   CORRECT

E.  The first is a general principle that the argument seeks to show is unsound; the second is the main criticism of that principle raised inthe argument.

BF1  The goal of maximizing profits is not opposed in the argument rather whether to outsource or not.   NOT CORRECT

Answer mostly could be D

Aditi_03 · Answer

Hi bb,
Regarding option D, when the option says 'the second is a statement of the main conclusion', isnt it trying to say that the statement from the main conclusion itself, which is the last line of the passage. I understand that the second boldface and main conclusion imply the same meaning but still the second boldface is different from (and not one of the statments of) the main conclusion.
What do you think?

Posted from my mobile device

Gemmie · Answer

1.   First Boldfaced Portion:  "Some analysts maintain that since the goal of any company is to maximize its profit, a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost."
This portion presents a generalization made by some analysts: companies should outsource to independent suppliers if it reduces costs.

2. Second Boldfaced Portion:  "Thus, a company’s long-term profitability might be better protected by not outsourcing."
This portion presents the argument's main conclusion: a company's long-term profitability might be better protected by not outsourcing.

Evaluate each option to determine which accurately describes the roles of these boldfaced portions:

A.  The first presents a generalization whose accuracy the argument calls into question; the second presents that generalization in a revised version that the argument concludes is correct. 
This is incorrect because the second boldfaced portion does not present a revised version of the first generalization. Instead, it presents a conclusion that opposes the generalization.

B.  The first presents a generalization that the argument criticizes as too sweeping; the second identifies potential exceptions to that generalization. 
This is incorrect because the second boldfaced portion does not identify exceptions. It presents a conclusion that contradicts the generalization.

C.  The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a position concerning those implications that is criticized in the argument. 
This is incorrect because the second boldfaced portion is not a position that is criticized. It is the main conclusion of the argument.

D.  The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a statement of the main conclusion of the argument.  
This is correct. The first boldfaced portion presents a general claim about outsourcing, and the second boldfaced portion is the argument's main conclusion that opposes this claim.

E.  The first is a general principle that the argument seeks to show is unsound; the second is the main criticism of that principle raised in the argument. 
This is incorrect because the second boldfaced portion is not a criticism. It is the main conclusion of the argument.

riri3026 · Answer

In relation to Option C: Is the author not criticising the act of outsourcing?

Posted from my mobile device

bronaugust · Answer

To solve this question, let us deploy  IMS's four-step technique .

STEP #1   ->  IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE

Let us read the question stem to identify the question type.
 
The stem indicates a  boldface  question.

STEP #2   ->  X-RAY THE ARGUMENT

In a  boldface  question, it is a must to x-ray the argument and figure out the function of each sentence. Let us therefore read the argument first and note the function of each of the sentences soon after.
 
 SENTENCE #1:  Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from independent suppliers products or services that a company previously provided for itself. | This sentence states a  fact .

SENTENCE #2:  Some analysts maintain that since  the goal of any company is to maximize its profit , a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost. | This sentence states the  opinion  of some analysts.

SENTENCE #3:   This very goal, however, could require a company to make the opposite decision.   | This sentence states the  viewpoint  of the author.

SENTENCE #4:  Companies that outsource generally dismantle some of their capabilities. | This sentence states a  fact  that the author uses to substantiate his viewpoint.

SENTENCE #5:  In so doing, they might make themselves totally dependent on just a few outside suppliers. | This sentence states the author's  belief ; this belief stems from the aforestated fact.

SENTENCE #6:  Since the outsourcing companies do not control the priorities of those suppliers, the continuity of supply and thus of their own operations could be threatened. | This sentence explains the author's viewpoint; it is the author's  opinion .

SENTENCE #7:  Thus, a company’s long-term profitability might be better protected by not outsourcing. | This sentence states the  position  of the author and along with the previous three sentences functions as a  support structure  for SENTENCE #3.

Clearly, the final say of the author is SENTENCE #3.

STEP #3   ->  FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER

To frame a shadow answer, we need to know what the right answer should do. In this question, the right answer must indicate the roles of the boldfaced portions accurately.

SHADOW ANSWER:  The first forms part of a position that is not the author's; the second is the author's final say.

STEP #4   ->  ELIMINATE INCORRECT ANSWERS

Options that do not match the shadow answer can be eliminated.

A. The first presents a generalization whose accuracy the argument calls into question; the second presents that generalization in a revised version that the argument concludes is correct.  |  NOT A MATCH  |  While we could say the first presents a generalization, note that the author does not call the accuracy of this generalization into question. In other words, the author does not indicate that the goal of any company is not to maximize its profit. This option can thus be eliminated.  |  ELIMINATE

B.  The first presents a generalization that the argument criticizes as too sweeping; the second identifies potential exceptions to that generalization.  |  NOT A MATCH  |  Again, the author DOES NOT in any manner indicate that the argument pertaining to the goal of any company is TOO SWEEPING.  |  ELIMINATE

C. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a position concerning those implications that is criticized in the argument.  |  NOT A MATCH  |  While the first part of this option makes total sense, the second is the author's viewpoint; therefore, the second is obviously not a position criticized in the argument.  |  ELIMINATE

D. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a statement of the main conclusion of the argument. |   MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER  |  Is the first a general claim? Yes, it is the claim of some analysts. Are the claim's implications (inferences) at issue (under dispute or discussion)? Yes, the author holds a different viewpoint apropos the general claim while the analysts have a different say. Now, is the second statement the main conclusion of the argument? Yes, for we have seen and known that the sentences that follow the second boldfaced portion act as support structures for the portion.  |  KEEP

E. The first is a general principle that the argument seeks to show is unsound; the second is the main criticism of that principle raised in the argument. |  NOT A MATCH  |  The first is not a general principle; it is a general opinion/claim.  |  ELIMINATE

Hence, (D) is the correct answer.

sanebeyondone · Answer

I'm having trouble reading a modifier that next to another modifier. In this case they are "that" and "concerning"
This is a grammar question for 'that' modifier in choice C.

C. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a position concerning those implications that is criticized in the argument.

How do I know which word "that" modify? Is it"implications" or "position"/"the second"?

Posted from my mobile device

bronaugust · Answer

To figure out which word 'that' modifies, you may want to pay attention to what comes after 'that'.

Now, the portion being discussed is this: The second is a position concerning those implications that  is  criticized in the argument.

'Is' cannot be used for a plural subject. Therefore, the subject of the verb 'is' cannot be 'implications', for 'implications' is a plural noun. Therefore, as per this option, it is not the implications that  are  criticized but the position (concerning those implications) that  is  criticized.

The phrase 'concerning those implications' is called the subject complement. It gives information about the subject, which happens to be 'position'.

sanebeyondone · Answer

Thank you so much sir!
I have further curiosity, If you wouldn't mind.
What if the pural word "implications" here is changed to singular word "implication" (ignoring the context and the premise), how to distinguish then? In this case, would it finally be the mistake of the question author/writer who make it ambiguous?

einstein801 · Answer

I second this.  MartyMurray  could you help please?

sarthak1701 · Answer

Hi, can you explain why is this not a criticism: " Companies that outsource generally dismantle some of their capabilities. In so doing, they might make themselves totally dependent on just a few outside suppliers. Since the outsourcing companies do not control the priorities of those suppliers, the continuity of supply and thus of their own operations could be threatened. ". The author states various risks and threats of using the outsourcing strategy, therefore, giving reasons to not opt that strategy, it fits the definition of criticism I think.

Alexgmattop · Answer

Can you    explain this question,the answer is E,and they explain that     Companies that outsource generally dismantle some of their capabilities.    That intermediate conclusion is indeed used to support the main conclusion of the argument.

Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from independent suppliers products or services that a company previously provided for itself.  Some analysts maintain that a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost, since the goal of any company is to maximize its profit. That goal, however, could require a company to make the opposite decision.  Companies that outsource generally dismantle some of their capabilities.  In so doing, they might make themselves totally dependent on just a few outside suppliers. Since the outsourcing companies do not control the priorities of those suppliers, the continuity of supply and thus of their own operations could be threatened. Thus, a company's long-term profitability might be better protected by not outsourcing.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A) The first describes a phenomenon the explanation of which is at issue in the argument; the second is the explanation that the argument concludes is correct.
B) The first describes a phenomenon the explanation of which is at issue in the argument; the second provides evidence in support of a proposed explanation of that phenomenon.
C) The first defines a key term used throughout the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion drawn to support the main conclusion of the argument.
D) The first defines a key term used throughout the argument; the second is a generalization that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument rejects.
E) The first defines a key term used throughout the argument; the second provides evidence in support of an intermediate conclusion that is drawn to support the main conclusion of the argument.  
 Choice Analysis 
 
  Choice A:

BF1

Outsourcing can be called a phenomenon.  
  But the explanation of what outsourcing is is not an issue in the argument.  
  BF1 is incorrect.

BF2

The second is a fact related to outsourcing (what happens when outsourcing is done). It is not an explanation of what outsourcing is. More importantly, it is considered as a factual truth. The argument does not “conclude” that it is correct. It is considered correct as is.  
  So, BF2 is also shady.

Choice B:

BF1

Same as choice A. Incorrect.

BF2

BF2 is evidence used to support the intermediate conclusion that the goal of maximising profits could require a company to go for in-house instead of outsourcing. It is not evidence in support of some proposed explanation of the phenomenon of outsourcing. Beyond the stated definition, there is no explanation of outsourcing. “Proposed explanation of that phenomenon” does not make much sense.  
  BF2 is also incorrect.

Choice C:

BF1

Correct. The whole argument is concerned with outsourcing. BF1 provides the definition of this key term.

BF2

BF2 is a factual truth (premise) used to support the intermediate conclusion. It is not the intermediate conclusion.  
  BF2 is incorrect.

Choice D:

BF1

Correct. Same as choice C.

BF2

BF2 is a generalization, yes. It tells us something companies that outsource generally do.  
  It is used to support a conclusion. Also yes, as we have seen before.  
  But the conclusion BF2 supports is not something the argument rejects. Nope. That conclusion is in fact used to support the main conclusion of the argument.  
  So, BF2 is incorrect.

Choice E:

BF1

Correct. Same as choice C.

BF2

BF2 can be considered as evidence.  
  It is indeed used to support an intermediate conclusion.  
  That intermediate conclusion is indeed used to support the main conclusion of the argument.  
  So, BF2 is also correct.

Dbrunik · Answer

MartyMurray

MartyMurray · Answer

Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from independent suppliers products or services that a company previously provided for itself. Some analysts maintain that since  the goal of any company is to maximize its profit , a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost.  This very goal, however, could require a company to make the opposite decision.  Companies that outsource generally dismantle some of their capabilities. In so doing, they might make themselves totally dependent on just a few outside suppliers. Since the outsourcing companies do not control the priorities of those suppliers, the continuity of supply and thus of their own operations could be threatened. Thus, a company’s long-term profitability might be better protected by not outsourcing.

Analyzing the passage, we see that the statements play the following roles:

Background information:  Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from independent suppliers products or services that a company previously provided for itself.

Presents the opinion of some analysts:  Some analysts maintain that since  the goal of any company is to maximize its profit , a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost.

Main conclusion:   This very goal, however, could require a company to make the opposite decision.

Support for intermediate conclusion (or possibly for a restatement of the main conclusion):  Companies that outsource generally dismantle some of their capabilities. In so doing, they might make themselves totally dependent on just a few outside suppliers. Since the outsourcing companies do not control the priorities of those suppliers, the continuity of supply and thus of their own operations could be threatened.

Intermediate conclusion (or possibly a restatement of the main conclusion):  Thus, a company’s long-term profitability might be better protected by not outsourcing.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

This is a Boldface question, and the correct answer will correctly describe the roles of the two boldfaced portions of the passage.

A. The first presents a generalization whose accuracy the argument calls into question; the second presents that generalization in a revised version that the argument concludes is correct.

While the first does present a generalization, the argument does not call into question the accuracy of " the goal of any company is to maximize its profit ." Rather, the argument supports a conclusion about the goal of maximizing profit without questioning whether that goal is the goal of any company.

The second part of this choice is also incorrect because the second boldfaced portion does not present a revised version of the first. Rather, the second presents a conclusion about the goal mentioned in the first.

Eliminate.

B. The first presents a generalization that the argument criticizes as too sweeping; the second identifies potential exceptions to that generalization.

While the first does present a generalization, the argument does not criticize that generalization. Rather, the argument supports a conclusion that is related to that generalization.

The second part of this choice is also incorrect because the second does not present any exceptions to the idea that " the goal of any company is to maximize its profit ." Rather, the second presents a conclusion about the goal.

Eliminate.

C. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a position concerning those implications that is criticized in the argument.

The first part of this choice is correct because the first boldfaced portion is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument.

The implications of the first boldfaced portion are "at issue" because the analysts maintain that the implications of the first boldfaced portion are that "a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost," whereas the argument concludes that the implications of the first boldfaced portion are that a company should be "not outsourcing."

At the same time, the second part of this choice is not correct because the second boldfaced portion is not "a position ... that is criticized." Rather, the second is a supported conclusion of the argument. In other words, the second boldfaced portion is not something that the author criticizes; it's something that the author believes.

Eliminate.

D. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a statement of the main conclusion of the argument.

The first part of this choice is correct because the first boldfaced portion is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument.

The implications of the first boldfaced portion are "at issue" because the analysts maintain that the implications of the first boldfaced portion are that "a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost," whereas the argument concludes that the implications of the first boldfaced portion are that a company should be "not outsourcing."

Also, the second part of this choice is correct because the second boldfaced portion does state the main conclusion of the argument.

We can see that the second boldfaced portion states the main conclusion since everything that follows the second boldfaced portion supports the second boldfaced portion and since the second boldfaced portion states what is basically the main point of the argument.

It's true that we could argue that the last sentence of the passage states the main conclusion of the argument. However, we could also argue that the last sentence states an intermediate conclusion that supports the second boldfaced portion. Alternatively, we could argue that both the second boldfaced portion and the last sentence of the passage state basically the same thing, which is the main point of the argument.

Either way, it's reasonable to say that the second boldfaced portion states the main conclusion. So, this choice is our best option.

Keep.

E. The first is a general principle that the argument seeks to show is unsound; the second is the main criticism of that principle raised in the argument.

This choice is tricky because the first boldfaced portion is PART OF something, what "analysts maintain," that the argument seeks to show is unsound.

At the same time, the first part of this choice is incorrect because the argument does not seek to show that the statement " the goal of any company is to maximize its profit ," is unsound. Rather, the argument seeks to show that the entire thing that analysts maintain, "since  the goal of any company is to maximize its profit , a company should outsource a product or service if an independent supplier can provide it at a lower cost," is unsound.

Also, the second part of this choice is incorrect since the second boldfaced portion is not a "criticism" of the first. Rather, it's a conclusion about the first that is not a criticism.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  D

MartyMurray · Answer

We could say that the author is doing something akin to criticizing the practice of outsourcing, though to be more exact, the author is suggesting that outsourcing "might" not be a good idea in certain situations.

At the same time, even if we go with the idea that the author is criticizing the practice of outsourcing, the second part of (C) would not be correct.

Let's review (C) and the second boldfaced portion to see why:

C. The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a position concerning those implications that is criticized in the argument.

This very goal, however, could require a company to make the opposite decision.

Notice that the second part of (C) does not say that the argument criticizes "outsourcing." It says that the second boldfaced portion " is a position .... that is criticized ."

So, the second part of (C) is incorrect because the argument does not  criticize  the second boldfaced portion. Rather, the second boldfaced portion is a conclusion that the argument  supports . Right?

In other words, the statement " This very goal ... could require a company to make the opposite decision ," is something that the author believes, not something that the author criticizes.

So, a takeaway here is that, to get a Boldface question correct, we must be careful not to decide that a choice is correct just because what it says is somehow vaguely related to what the argument does, and we must instead determine exactly whether the choice accurately describes the specific roles of the boldfaced portions of the passage.

amoeba99 · Answer

Can someone explain what does the below mean?

The first is a general claim whose implications are at issue in the argument

How is talking about outsourcing an implication of the statement that goal of every company is to make profit? It does not flow directly atleast.

egmat · Answer

Looking at your confusion about "implications" - this is actually a  crucial concept  for GMAT Critical Reasoning that many students struggle with initially!

Understanding "Implications" in Arguments
 
When we say "implications are at issue," we mean:  What actions or decisions should logically follow from this principle?
 
Think of it this way:
 
  General Claim:  "The goal of any company is to maximize profit" 
  The Implication Question:  "So what should companies DO to achieve this goal?"

The argument shows  two competing answers  to this question:
 
  Implication #1 (Some analysts):  Maximize profit → Outsource if it's cheaper 
  Implication #2 (The argument's position):  Maximize profit → DON'T outsource (to protect long-term profitability)

Why This Matters 
The passage isn't questioning the profit maximization principle itself. It's debating  what that principle implies for outsourcing decisions . Both sides agree on the goal (maximize profit) but disagree on how to achieve it!

It's like saying:
 
 Principle: "Stay healthy" 
 Implication debate: Should you exercise intensely every day (get fit faster) OR exercise moderately (avoid injury)?

Same principle, different implications!

Key Takeaway for GMAT CR:  When you see "implications are at issue," look for:
 
 A general principle everyone accepts 
 Different interpretations of what that principle means for specific actions 
 The argument taking a position on which interpretation is correct

This is why  Answer D  is correct: The first boldface states the general claim (profit maximization), and the entire argument debates what this implies for outsourcing decisions. The second boldface is the argument's conclusion about those implications.

Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from independent suppliers

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

Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from independent suppliers

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