Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Jun 0808:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
A powerful GMAT course taught live online + 6 months of access to TTP OnDemand GMAT Masterclass included! Mon/Wed June 8, 2026 →August 12, 2026 8:00pm-10:00pm EST
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
TTP GMAT OnDemand gives serious students 400+ hours of expert video instruction, the full TTP course, AI support, weekly office hours, and a 715+ score guarantee—all built for elite GMAT score improvement.
02 Jun 2026, 17:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Established manufacturers face a tension between exploiting their existing capabilities, in service of short-term profits, exploring new opportunities with an eye to long-term viability. Exploitation goals include constructive dialogue with existing clients, together with the at-scale improvement of products and manufacturing techniques that the dialogue informs. Exploration includes experimental refinement, or creation from scratch, of product prototypes and manufacturing processes, as well as preparatory analysis of and outreach into potential new markets.
Exploration and exploitation ultimately must compete for a firm’s managerial and capital resources. Maldonado showed that firms allocating too many resources to exploitation, while nearly always exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the immediate term, face high probabilities of insolvency as markets evolve. Conversely, De La Cruz showed that excess allocation in the opposite direction causes firms to accumulate more provisional technologies than they can possibly commercialize, and therefore to spread research and development resources far too thinly across those technologies, while also struggling to meet absolute minimum production figures. Executives must guide their companies to the optimal balance in between.
Some manufacturers have chartered functionally separate, largely autonomous company divisions known as “skunkworks” to address exploration goals. These operate at a remove from short-term market fluctuations and their unpredictable-yet-always-urgent pressures on main production floors, so that their small teams can maintain the sharp collective focus that skunkworks were conceived to promote. Critics, however, claim that innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations, and that only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunkworks and the main floor, rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst,
In a second, newer approach to this overall question of balance, known as employee ambidexterity, individual employees choose independently how to allocate their time between exploitative and exploratory tasks. Proponents contend that this model fosters a culture of continuous innovation while preserving the unity and camaraderie of the corporation as a whole. Skeptics counter that without institutional buffers, short-term performance pressures will consistently crowd out exploratory activity, leaving the company’s long-term adaptive capacity to languish.
Which of the following, if true of skunk-works, most undermines the argument that the passage attributes to their critics?
A. When the products or innovations they develop cannot easily be incorporated into the corporation’s main lines of business, they can typically be sold off to other firms at considerable capital gains.
B. Their products have much better prospects of integration into the corporation’s core business if their employees work three days per week in the skunkworks and two days per week in one of the corporation’s main departments than if they work in the skunk-works full-time.
C. Their products and innovations tend to have more in common with those developed by startup companies, which do not have shareholders and are not expected to be profitable overall, than with their own corporation’s main output.
D. Their employees typically share a considerable depth of knowledge or experience in one or more specialized areas, enabling them to develop products for narrowly defined niche markets.
E. Their employees are normally paid large bonuses if any of their products or innovations are eventually integrated into the corporation’s larger main lines of production.
Exploration and exploitation ultimately must compete for a firm’s managerial and capital resources. Maldonado showed that firms allocating too many resources to exploitation, while nearly always exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the immediate term, face high probabilities of insolvency as markets evolve. Conversely, De La Cruz showed that excess allocation in the opposite direction causes firms to accumulate more provisional technologies than they can possibly commercialize, and therefore to spread research and development resources far too thinly across those technologies, while also struggling to meet absolute minimum production figures. Executives must guide their companies to the optimal balance in between.
Some manufacturers have chartered functionally separate, largely autonomous company divisions known as “skunkworks” to address exploration goals. These operate at a remove from short-term market fluctuations and their unpredictable-yet-always-urgent pressures on main production floors, so that their small teams can maintain the sharp collective focus that skunkworks were conceived to promote. Critics, however, claim that innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations, and that only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunkworks and the main floor, rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst,
In a second, newer approach to this overall question of balance, known as employee ambidexterity, individual employees choose independently how to allocate their time between exploitative and exploratory tasks. Proponents contend that this model fosters a culture of continuous innovation while preserving the unity and camaraderie of the corporation as a whole. Skeptics counter that without institutional buffers, short-term performance pressures will consistently crowd out exploratory activity, leaving the company’s long-term adaptive capacity to languish.
Which of the following, if true of skunk-works, most undermines the argument that the passage attributes to their critics?
A. When the products or innovations they develop cannot easily be incorporated into the corporation’s main lines of business, they can typically be sold off to other firms at considerable capital gains.
B. Their products have much better prospects of integration into the corporation’s core business if their employees work three days per week in the skunkworks and two days per week in one of the corporation’s main departments than if they work in the skunk-works full-time.
C. Their products and innovations tend to have more in common with those developed by startup companies, which do not have shareholders and are not expected to be profitable overall, than with their own corporation’s main output.
D. Their employees typically share a considerable depth of knowledge or experience in one or more specialized areas, enabling them to develop products for narrowly defined niche markets.
E. Their employees are normally paid large bonuses if any of their products or innovations are eventually integrated into the corporation’s larger main lines of production.
02 Jun 2026, 17:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Established manufacturers face a tension between exploiting their existing capabilities, in service of short-term profits, exploring new opportunities with an eye to long-term viability. Exploitation goals include constructive dialogue with existing clients, together with the at-scale improvement of products and manufacturing techniques that the dialogue informs. Exploration includes experimental refinement, or creation from scratch, of product prototypes and manufacturing processes, as well as preparatory analysis of and outreach into potential new markets.
Exploration and exploitation ultimately must compete for a firm’s managerial and capital resources. Maldonado showed that firms allocating too many resources to exploitation, while nearly always exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the immediate term, face high probabilities of insolvency as markets evolve. Conversely, De La Cruz showed that excess allocation in the opposite direction causes firms to accumulate more provisional technologies than they can possibly commercialize, and therefore to spread research and development resources far too thinly across those technologies, while also struggling to meet absolute minimum production figures. Executives must guide their companies to the optimal balance in between.
Some manufacturers have chartered functionally separate, largely autonomous company divisions known as “skunkworks” to address exploration goals. These operate at a remove from short-term market fluctuations and their unpredictable-yet-always-urgent pressures on main production floors, so that their small teams can maintain the sharp collective focus that skunkworks were conceived to promote. Critics, however, claim that innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations, and that only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunkworks and the main floor, rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst,
In a second, newer approach to this overall question of balance, known as employee ambidexterity, individual employees choose independently how to allocate their time between exploitative and exploratory tasks. Proponents contend that this model fosters a culture of continuous innovation while preserving the unity and camaraderie of the corporation as a whole. Skeptics counter that without institutional buffers, short-term performance pressures will consistently crowd out exploratory activity, leaving the company’s long-term adaptive capacity to languish.
Which of the following, if true of skunk-works, most undermines the argument that the passage attributes to their critics?
A. When the products or innovations they develop cannot easily be incorporated into the corporation’s main lines of business, they can typically be sold off to other firms at considerable capital gains.
B. Their products have much better prospects of integration into the corporation’s core business if their employees work three days per week in the skunkworks and two days per week in one of the corporation’s main departments than if they work in the skunk-works full-time.
C. Their products and innovations tend to have more in common with those developed by startup companies, which do not have shareholders and are not expected to be profitable overall, than with their own corporation’s main output.
D. Their employees typically share a considerable depth of knowledge or experience in one or more specialized areas, enabling them to develop products for narrowly defined niche markets.
E. Their employees are normally paid large bonuses if any of their products or innovations are eventually integrated into the corporation’s larger main lines of production.
The first step here, of course, is to find “the argument attributed to skunk-works critics”. That argument is easy to find; it’s at the end of the paragraph about skunk-works.
What do the critics say?
They say that 1) “innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations”; 2) “only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunk-works and the main floor”; 3) “rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst”.
Of these three sets of thoughts, only 1) contains a statement that’s actually well-defined enough to be a good-faith basis for a GMAT strengthening/weakening problem. (2) makes a rhetorically powerful statement but contains zero specifics of any kind; 3) is mostly speculative, and covers such a wide range of possibilities that there’s no real way to counter-argue it.)
That statement is: An innovation made in an isolated unit within a larger company can eventually become profitable for the company ONLY if that innovation is introduced into the company’s wider, mainstream operations. That “only” requires that there be no other conceivable way for innovations grown in a skunk-works to ever return value to the corporation. Accordingly, 1) can be undercut by the existence of ANY other route to profitability for a skunk-works-developed innovation, other than introduction into the same corporation’s main operations.
Nothing further is asserted in 1) , so we have a concrete goal: Any OTHER way for a skunk-works-grown innovation to pay an eventual return back to the larger company will be the correct answer.
That’s choice A, which says that the company can also profit by selling these innovations off to other manufacturers.
INCORRECT ANSWERS:
(B) The logical integrity of “if X, then Y” (= “X only if Y”), or of the corresponding cause/effect relationship, is not affected by variations in the numerical probability of “X” or “Y”; only the causal logic is relevant. This choice describes a statistical factor that affects those individual probabilities but does not bear on the cause/effect logic, so it is irrelevant.
(C) Ways in which a skunk-works embedded within a larger corporation may or may not incidentally resemble some altogether different corporate structure (like a startup) have no relevance to the critics’ argument, which is not concerned with any entity outside the parent corporation of the skunk-works.
Moreover, the statement in this choice provides a solid, compact reason why part 1) of the critics’ argument could be TRUE: If a skunk-works functions essentially like a business model that is not intended to generate profits, then it stands to reason that its products probably won’t generate any profits without the help of other parts of the parent corporation that ARE highly concerned with generating profits. In other words, this choice gives a highly plausible reason WHY innovations from a skunk-works DO need to reach the parent company’s mainstream production lines to become profitable. Obviously, a statement that is perfectly consistent with everything in an argument and that provides additional plausibility FOR the argument’s line of reasoning cannot possibly WEAKEN that argument.
(D) This choice provides some additional specific reasons TO create skunk-works divisions within larger corporations, over and above the single specific reason given in the passage (= that a skunk-works doesn’t need to be perpetually reacting to the rapid short-term changes in market demand, in the way that the parent company’s mainstream manufacturing divisions do). The critics’ argument is not about whether skunk-works should or should not exist in the first place, so the content of choice D is irrelevant to this problem.
Moreover, this choice has nothing to do with the potential profitability of innovations from a skunk-works, which IS the idea at the heart of the critics’ argument—an observation that once again shows this choice to be irrelevant. (Each of the two approaches here by itself is sufficient to prove that this choice is irrelevant.)
(E) The logical integrity of “if X, then Y” (= “X only if Y”), or of the corresponding cause/effect relationship, is not affected by variations in the numerical probability of “X” or “Y”; only the causal logic is relevant. This choice—like choice B—describes an additional factor that could plausibly affect those individual probabilities but does not bear on the cause/effect logic, so it is irrelevant for the same reasons.
Answer: A
Established manufacturers face a tension between exploiting their existing capabilities, in service of short-term profits, exploring new opportunities with an eye to long-term viability. Exploitation goals include constructive dialogue with existing clients, together with the at-scale improvement of products and manufacturing techniques that the dialogue informs. Exploration includes experimental refinement, or creation from scratch, of product prototypes and manufacturing processes, as well as preparatory analysis of and outreach into potential new markets.
Exploration and exploitation ultimately must compete for a firm’s managerial and capital resources. Maldonado showed that firms allocating too many resources to exploitation, while nearly always exceptionally productive and cost-efficient in the immediate term, face high probabilities of insolvency as markets evolve. Conversely, De La Cruz showed that excess allocation in the opposite direction causes firms to accumulate more provisional technologies than they can possibly commercialize, and therefore to spread research and development resources far too thinly across those technologies, while also struggling to meet absolute minimum production figures. Executives must guide their companies to the optimal balance in between.
Some manufacturers have chartered functionally separate, largely autonomous company divisions known as “skunkworks” to address exploration goals. These operate at a remove from short-term market fluctuations and their unpredictable-yet-always-urgent pressures on main production floors, so that their small teams can maintain the sharp collective focus that skunkworks were conceived to promote. Critics, however, claim that innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations, and that only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunkworks and the main floor, rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst,
In a second, newer approach to this overall question of balance, known as employee ambidexterity, individual employees choose independently how to allocate their time between exploitative and exploratory tasks. Proponents contend that this model fosters a culture of continuous innovation while preserving the unity and camaraderie of the corporation as a whole. Skeptics counter that without institutional buffers, short-term performance pressures will consistently crowd out exploratory activity, leaving the company’s long-term adaptive capacity to languish.
Which of the following, if true of skunk-works, most undermines the argument that the passage attributes to their critics?
A. When the products or innovations they develop cannot easily be incorporated into the corporation’s main lines of business, they can typically be sold off to other firms at considerable capital gains.
B. Their products have much better prospects of integration into the corporation’s core business if their employees work three days per week in the skunkworks and two days per week in one of the corporation’s main departments than if they work in the skunk-works full-time.
C. Their products and innovations tend to have more in common with those developed by startup companies, which do not have shareholders and are not expected to be profitable overall, than with their own corporation’s main output.
D. Their employees typically share a considerable depth of knowledge or experience in one or more specialized areas, enabling them to develop products for narrowly defined niche markets.
E. Their employees are normally paid large bonuses if any of their products or innovations are eventually integrated into the corporation’s larger main lines of production.
The first step here, of course, is to find “the argument attributed to skunk-works critics”. That argument is easy to find; it’s at the end of the paragraph about skunk-works.
What do the critics say?
They say that 1) “innovations from a sequestered unit cannot produce returns until they and their underlying knowledge base are integrated into the company’s mainstream operations”; 2) “only then will both sides of the attempted knowledge transfer discover just how many significant communication, skill and culture gaps have opened up across the scrupulously maintained distance between the skunk-works and the main floor”; 3) “rendering the integration process anywhere from tedious and exasperating at best, to actually impossible at worst”.
Of these three sets of thoughts, only 1) contains a statement that’s actually well-defined enough to be a good-faith basis for a GMAT strengthening/weakening problem. (2) makes a rhetorically powerful statement but contains zero specifics of any kind; 3) is mostly speculative, and covers such a wide range of possibilities that there’s no real way to counter-argue it.)
That statement is: An innovation made in an isolated unit within a larger company can eventually become profitable for the company ONLY if that innovation is introduced into the company’s wider, mainstream operations. That “only” requires that there be no other conceivable way for innovations grown in a skunk-works to ever return value to the corporation. Accordingly, 1) can be undercut by the existence of ANY other route to profitability for a skunk-works-developed innovation, other than introduction into the same corporation’s main operations.
Nothing further is asserted in 1) , so we have a concrete goal: Any OTHER way for a skunk-works-grown innovation to pay an eventual return back to the larger company will be the correct answer.
That’s choice A, which says that the company can also profit by selling these innovations off to other manufacturers.
INCORRECT ANSWERS:
(B) The logical integrity of “if X, then Y” (= “X only if Y”), or of the corresponding cause/effect relationship, is not affected by variations in the numerical probability of “X” or “Y”; only the causal logic is relevant. This choice describes a statistical factor that affects those individual probabilities but does not bear on the cause/effect logic, so it is irrelevant.
(C) Ways in which a skunk-works embedded within a larger corporation may or may not incidentally resemble some altogether different corporate structure (like a startup) have no relevance to the critics’ argument, which is not concerned with any entity outside the parent corporation of the skunk-works.
Moreover, the statement in this choice provides a solid, compact reason why part 1) of the critics’ argument could be TRUE: If a skunk-works functions essentially like a business model that is not intended to generate profits, then it stands to reason that its products probably won’t generate any profits without the help of other parts of the parent corporation that ARE highly concerned with generating profits. In other words, this choice gives a highly plausible reason WHY innovations from a skunk-works DO need to reach the parent company’s mainstream production lines to become profitable. Obviously, a statement that is perfectly consistent with everything in an argument and that provides additional plausibility FOR the argument’s line of reasoning cannot possibly WEAKEN that argument.
(D) This choice provides some additional specific reasons TO create skunk-works divisions within larger corporations, over and above the single specific reason given in the passage (= that a skunk-works doesn’t need to be perpetually reacting to the rapid short-term changes in market demand, in the way that the parent company’s mainstream manufacturing divisions do). The critics’ argument is not about whether skunk-works should or should not exist in the first place, so the content of choice D is irrelevant to this problem.
Moreover, this choice has nothing to do with the potential profitability of innovations from a skunk-works, which IS the idea at the heart of the critics’ argument—an observation that once again shows this choice to be irrelevant. (Each of the two approaches here by itself is sufficient to prove that this choice is irrelevant.)
(E) The logical integrity of “if X, then Y” (= “X only if Y”), or of the corresponding cause/effect relationship, is not affected by variations in the numerical probability of “X” or “Y”; only the causal logic is relevant. This choice—like choice B—describes an additional factor that could plausibly affect those individual probabilities but does not bear on the cause/effect logic, so it is irrelevant for the same reasons.
Answer: A
