Critics of sales seminars run by outside consultants point out that si

Question

Critics of sales seminars run by outside consultants point out that since 1987, revenues of vacuum cleaner companies whose employees attended consultant-led seminars were lower than revenues of vacuum cleaner companies whose employees did not attend such seminars. The critics charge that for vacuum cleaner companies, the sales seminars are ill conceived and a waste of money.

Which of the following, if true, is the most effective challenge to the critics of sales seminars?

(A) Those vacuum cleaner companies whose sales were highest prior to 1987 are the only companies that did not send employees to the seminars.

(B) Vacuum cleaner companies that have sent employees to sales seminars since 1987 experienced a greater drop in sales than they had prior to 1987.

(C) The cost of vacuum cleaner sales seminars run by outside consultants has risen dramatically since 1987.

(D) The poor design of vacuum cleaner sales seminars is not the only reason for their ineffectiveness.

(E) Since 1987, sales of vacuum cleaners have risen twenty percent.

ChrisLele · Accepted Answer

We have two groups: vacuum cleaner salesmen who attend sales seminars and those who don’t. The latter group is said to sell more. The argument concludes that sales seminars are a waste of time.

But what if the two groups vary in a significant way, making comparisons between them invalid (at least as it pertains to efficacy of sales conferences)?

Thus we want to find an answer that shows that two groups of different.

Only (A) does so by pointing out that vacuum cleaner salesmen who did not attend conferences were already selling the most vacuum cleaners. To say that they were still selling the most after the post-conferences doesn’t mean that the conferences were a “waste of money.”

Let’s use some numbers to illustrate:

Pre-1987 sales Post 1987 sales
Not-Attending V. Salesmen 10 million/person 12 million/person

Attending V. Salesmen 1 million/person 2 million/person

This shows us that the seminars can be very helpful, even when those who attended had far less in revenue than those who did not attend.

Therefore (A) is the best answer.

rsh12 · Answer

IMO,

I was confused between A and E.

B - Strengthens
C- Irrelevant
D- Initially, the argument looks like it is more towards the sales seminar value but it is not. Also, this statement is not weakening it. It is restating a conclusion - which is not correct in 'weaken' type questions.
E - Again, Sales increase revenue decrease, that means there is something else wrong within the companies and has nothing to do with the seminars. First it really looks like it is weakening. On a second thought, it does not. If it would have said, the revenues have increased - only then it would have been the correct answer.

A- Correct.

mgjsankar · Answer

It can only mean that the salesperson who did not attend the seminar pre and post 1987 retained their sales efficiency. But how can it mean that the people who attended the seminar improved their efficiency? The numbers you have quoted state that salesmen who did not attend the seminar sold 2 million /per person after 1987. The passage does not say anything like that. It only says that the revenue of companies which attended the seminar continued to be lower than that of companies that did not attend. The data could very well be 8 million per person for non-attendees post 1987 vis-a-vis 0.5 miilion/pre person for attendee companies. This is also a possibility. We cannot say that the seminar is useful in such a case.

LearningTheRopes · Answer

We are being asked which choice most weakens the argument. A is correct because it provides a different reason for why companies that provided seminars had lower revenues than those that did not. Rather than this being the result of their employees' attending seminars, we see that the companies were already earning more revenue before the assessment.

Essentially, the answer points to the conclusion being true before the variable in question, having employees attending seminars, is present. Think of it as A = B, and because A + C = B, you attempt to conclude that C is the cause of B. Good question

naveengmat15 · Answer

B - Strengthens
C- Irrelevant
D- Initially, the argument looks like it is more towards the sales seminar value but it is not. Also, this statement is not weakening it. It is restating a conclusion - which is not correct in 'weaken' type questions.
E - Again, Sales increase revenue decrease, that means there is something else wrong within the companies and has nothing to do with the seminars. First it really looks like it is weakening. On a second thought, it does not. If it would have said, the revenues have increased - only then it would have been the correct answer.

Left with A

SatvikVedala · Answer

I was confused between A & D. Ultimately went with D

The reason for D was, I pre-thought it's not JUST seminar that is ineffective there is more to it

But after reading the posts below, understood flaw with the pre-thinking.

ayushiii02 · Answer

The critics say that sales seminar are ill concieved and waste of money but aren’t they proven correct with A?

Posted from my mobile device

Purnank · Answer

Though i understood how rest of them are wrong. But, how pre 1987 earnings/sales can act as a weakener against the critics?

shaliny · Answer

i request to GMAT ninja/ Bunuel to explain this argument, please..

agrasan · Answer

The gist of this argument is that the  comparison  is done between   oranges  and  apples  . If those companies  (let's say bucket A)  already had top performing sales then there might not be a need for them to conduct seminars to improve sales and when companies  (let's say bucket B)  which have low sales conduct seminars and are compared with bucket A, then the conclusion is made that the seminars are not working to improve sales which is clearly a flawed one. Thus, option A fits as a correct answer.

shaliny · Answer

got you, here cause n effect are exchanged . thanks

ppoomm · Answer

This exactly is what I confirm for A) as the weakener after eliminated other choices. At first, it didn’t seem to fit in to the context that much.

May I add on top of what you already said, this choice also lightly confirms that, without this seminar, those attended companies might do even worse (since the companies that didn’t attend sold exemplarily well)

Critics of sales seminars run by outside consultants point out that si

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

Critics of sales seminars run by outside consultants point out that si

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