Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive title

Question

Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they fear that  the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy . Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however,  use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses . The obvious compromise is for these executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use executive titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.

In the consultant’s reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A) The first presents an obstacle to achieving a certain goal; the second presents a reason for considering that goal to be undesirable.

B) The first is a consideration that has led to the adoption of a certain strategy; the second presents a reason against adopting that strategy.

C) The first describes a concern that the consultant dismisses as insignificant; the second is a consideration that serves as the basis for that dismissal.

D) The first is a belief for which the consultant offers support; the second is part of that support.

E) The first is a belief against which evidence is offered; the second is part of the evidence offered against that belief.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Some corporations shun the use of executive titles  - New Strategy used by some corps (Normal strategy was to use titles)

because they fear that  the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy  . - Reason for adopting New Strategy

Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however,  use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses  . - Support for Normal strategy; this is against new strategy

The obvious compromise is for these executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally,  - Compromise of the two strategy

since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use executive titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.  - Support for Compromise Strategy

We see that the first boldface sentence is a reason for adopting the new strategy. The second bold statement is a reason against the new strategy (in favour of the normal strategy)

A) The first presents an obstacle to achieving a certain goal; the second presents a reason for considering that goal to be undesirable.

No obstacle for a goal is discussed.

B) The first is a consideration that has led to the adoption of a certain strategy; the second presents a reason against adopting that strategy.

Correct. First is a consideration supporting new strategy. The second bold statement is a reason against adopting the new strategy.

C) The first describes a concern that the consultant dismisses as insignificant; the second is a consideration that serves as the basis for that dismissal.

No, he doesn't dismiss the concern. He offers a solution which takes care of both concerns.

D) The first is a belief for which the consultant offers support; the second is part of that support.

Even if the first is considered a belief, the consultant offers no support for it. The consultant suggest compromise strategy which incorporates the positives of both.

E) The first is a belief against which evidence is offered; the second is part of the evidence offered against that belief.

No evidence is offered against the first bold statement. The author does not say that using titles does not inhibit communication in the org.

Answer (B)

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Analysis: First Boldface: Consideration that has led to the adoption of a certain strategy. Second Boldface: A reason against adopting that strategy

A. The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.  Correct

B. The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal  . Incorrect

C. The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance  of that problem. Incorrect

D. The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon  . Incorrect

E. The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification  ; the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that justification. Incorrect

bus1nessmgt2012 · Answer

The first and foremost thing that you have to possess if you want to be a Business Management Consultants is the ability to solve complex problems that arises in the company.

akrish1982 · Answer

seems like you have highlighted incorrect portions:

this is how it is highlighted in the link you have provided
 
Business Consultant:  Some corporations shun the use of executive titles  because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy. Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however,  use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses . Clearly, corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.

mbaiseasy · Answer

A) The first presents an obstacle to achieving a certain goal; the second presents  a reason for considering that goal to be undesirable . 
  The author acknowledged the obstacle but never thought of the goal as undesirable

B) The first is a consideration that has led to the adoption of a certain strategy; the second presents a reason against adopting that strategy.

C) The  first describes a concern that the consultant dismisses as insignificant ; the second is a consideration that serves as the basis for that dismissal.   The first is accepted by the author to be a valid consideration...

D) The first is a belief for which the consultant offers support;  the second is part of that support .   The two bolded are inherently opposite points but yielded a strategy with compromise... The second is not part of the first...

E) The first is a  belief against which evidence is offered ; the second is part of the evidence offered against that belief.   The first is accepted by the author to be a valid consideration...

Answer: B

The first is a consideration that led to comapnies not using titles BUT the second is a valid point that made the "non-usage of titles" less desirable over "using titles"..

Nitinaka19 · Answer

Hi EGMAT,

Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they
fear that  the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit
communication up and down the corporate hierarchy . Since an executive who uses a
title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however,  use of a title can facilitate an
executive’s dealings with external businesses.  The obvious compromise is for these
executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, since even if it is widely
known that the corporation’s executives use executive titles outside their organization, this
knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation. In the
consultant’s reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
A. The first presents an obstacle to achieving a certain goal; the second presents a reason for
considering that goal to be undesirable.
B. The first is a consideration that has led to the adoption of a certain strategy; the second
presents a reason against adopting that strategy.
C. The first describes a concern that the consultant dismisses as insignificant; the second is a
consideration that serves as the basis for that dismissal.
D. The first is a belief for which the consultant offers support; the second is part of that support.
E. The first is a belief against which evidence is offered; the second is part of the evidence
offered against that belief.

Lets Spilt the argument

Some corporations shun the use of executive titles.. ...Consultant opinion..statement1

because they fear that  the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit
communication up and down the corporate hierarchy . Reason for above statement.1

Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, Reason for below statement2

however,  use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses . Consultant opinion... MAIN CONCLUSION

The obvious compromise is for these executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, Consultant opinion.. statement 3

since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use executive titles outside their organization, this
knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation. Reasons for above statement3.

As per the above understanding.

First bold face is could be explanation or a consideration for the first statement that is the statergy as mentioned in the answer choices.

Second bold face seems like a Consultant opinion not a reasoning its a opinion . or the main conclusion. reasoning is statement before the argument.

Please correct me,where I'm getting wrong.

Thanks

Nitin Singh

egmat · Answer

Hi,

Thanks for your analysis. Here are my comments:

Some corporations shun the use of executive titles.. ...Consultant opinion..statement1 -  Incorrect. This is not an opinion. This is presented as a fact.

because they fear that  the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit
communication up and down the corporate hierarchy . Reason for above statement.1 -  Correct

Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, Reason for below statement2 -  Correct

however,  use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses . Consultant opinion... MAIN CONCLUSION - Incorrect. This is an intermediate conclusion.

The obvious compromise is for these executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, Consultant opinion.. statement 3 -  This is the main conclusion.

since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use executive titles outside their organization, this
knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation. Reasons for above statement3. -  Correct

As per the above understanding.

First bold face is could be explanation or a consideration for the first statement that is the statergy as mentioned in the answer choices. -  Correct

Second bold face seems like a Consultant opinion not a reasoning its a opinion . or the main conclusion. reasoning is statement before the argument. -  Second is an opinion and an intermediate conclusion, which disfavors the statement 1.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Kurtosis · Answer

A. The first presents an obstacle to achieving a certain goal; the second presents a reason for considering that goal to be undesirable. -  Incorrect. First boldface may be considered as an obstacle, but the second boldface is wrong. 
B. The first is a consideration that has lead to the adoption of a certain strategy; the second presents a reason against adopting that strategy -  Correct. First boldface has led some corporations to shun the use of titles; Second boldface presents an advantage of using titles and hence presents a reason against the practice to shun the use of titles 
C. The first describes a concern that the consultant dismisses as insignificant; the second is a consideration that serves as the basis for that dismissal -  Incorrect. First boldface is wrong. 
D. The first is a belief for which the consultant offers support; the second is part of that support. -  Incorrect. First boldface is not a belief and second boldface is not supporting the first. 
E. The first is a belief against which evidence is offered; the second is part of the evidence offered against that belief. -  Incorrect. First boldface is not a belief.

In my opinion the answer is  B

Spovil · Answer

B is the correct answer.

Some corporations shun the use of executive titles -  Action/conclusion by corporations 
because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy -  Reasoning/support for above conclusion 
Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders -  Premise by BC 
however, use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses -  Conclusion by BC

The obvious compromise is for these executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use executive titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.

Shunning titles is like a strategy for corporations. First BF statement supports this strategy. Author or BC gives another viewpoint, which, doesn't go against the corporations reasoning. Instead, BC offers an alternate approach to handle the problem.

sleepynut · Answer

Hi expert,
I couldn't understand why option B is the correct answer.
The 2nd bold face doesn't argue against adopting the strategy to shun the use of title in the corporation.In fact,it states the benefit of its usage outside the company.IMHO,this is just a premise to the conclusion of this argument-- to compromise the use of title externally,not internally.

ps. there is no official answer for this question

sayantanc2k · Answer

There are two strategies discussed in the passage: 
1. The strategy that is already adopted by some companies: shunning the use of titles altogether.
2. The strategy that is proposed by the author: shunning the use of title internally, but not externally.

Option B mentions the first strategy ("..led to the adoption of a certain strategy"). The strategy   adopted   is shunning the title (irrespective of internal or external usage) - "Some corporations shun the use of executive titles", i.e. they totally stop using titles. The second bold face gives a reason that use of titles should not be shunned altogether (at least externally).

You are mistaken in that the strategy is using the titles externally, but not internally (the second one): this is a proposed strategy, not the strategy that is already adopted (the first one).

mSKR · Answer

Business Consultant: --presenter

• Some corporations shun the use of executive titles – Finding by consultant ( FACT)

 because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy. 
Reasoning of above statement premise1

• Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, - – Fact /reasoning
 however, use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses. – opinion by consultant ( against statement1)

• The obvious compromise is for these executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, - (conclusion by consultant )- main conclusion 
 since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use executive titles outside their organization, ( reasoning for conclusion )- strategy
 this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation. (reasoning for conclusion)

In the consultant’s reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following- question

Key for question : ( keep in mind )
St1: conclusion (supporting ] + reasoning 
State2: ( against statement 1)

Step1: Short listing on key for question to eliminate quickly 
A) The first presents  an obstacle  to achieving a certain goal; - supports 
the second presents a reason for considering that goal to be undesirable.( OK)
>>straightforward reject

B) The first is a consideration that has led to the adoption of a certain strategy; (OK)
the second presents a reason against adopting that strategy. .( OK)
Strategy: main conclusion, seems OK

C) The first describes a concern that the   consultant dismisses as insignificant  ; - he considers ( supports)
the second is a consideration that serves as the basis for that dismissal. .( OK)
>>straightforward reject

D) The first is a belief for which the consultant offers support; 
the second is part of  that support .( against)
>>straightforward reject

E) The first is a belief against which evidence is offered; ( could be belief- key words ( fear+ tends) – OK), what is evidence? 
the second is  part of the evidence  offered against that belief( no evidence)
part of any evidence? 
Evidence consists in a special type of data- no data is available in whole argument
>> reject

Answer:B

kntombat · Answer

Bunuel , the OA is B, your explanation has Option A as the OA.

nitingmat2022 · Answer

Hi Experts,

in correct options B second bold face "the second presents a reason against adopting that strategy."

if we break the sentence

from "present a reason" phrase, what i understood the bold face should be a reason. but when i read the statement. 
It's an opinion by corporation. The reason is stated just preceding the opinion by corporation.

but when i read the whole statement "the second presents a reason against adopting that strategy.".

The entire statement is against that strategy & it can be understood overall that it presents a reason.

Can you add your 2 cents?

Thanks
Nitin

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument -

Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles - some strategy/observation/Fact
because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy. Support for the strategy observed in the first sentence.
Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however, - observation/fact
use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses. Opinion. going in the opposite direction as the first strategy.
The obvious compromise is for these executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, - the main conclusion. Alternate strategy.
since even if it is widely known that the corporation’s executives use executive titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation. - support for an alternate strategy.

Option Elimination -

A) The first presents an obstacle to achieving a certain goal (If the goal is to have seamless communication up/down and the plan is to shun the titles. The first doesn't go against the goal); the second presents a reason for considering that goal to be undesirable. (No, the BF2 doesn't say that the goal is undesirable. It says while the goal is great, following this strategy may not be helpful for another scenario - the external communications)

B) The first is a consideration that has led to the adoption of a certain strategy (what "certain" strategy - strategy shun the use of executive titles. Yes, it supports this strategy); the second presents a reason against adopting that strategy. (Yes, It brings in an aspect of an external scenario that counters the first strategy and that ultimately lets the author propose an alternate strategy - the main conclusion.)

C) The first describes a concern that the consultant dismisses as insignificant (First, it's not a concern. It's a support for the strategy in sentence 1. Moreover, No the author doesn't dismiss anything insignificant. The author acknowledges the importance and thus proposes an alternate strategy that takes care of both internal and external concerns); the second is a consideration that serves as the basis for that dismissal. (what dismissal - that its insignificat? No.)

D) The first is a belief for which the consultant offers support (No, the author doesn't provide any support for BF1. In fact, the BF1 is a support for the 1st statement); the second is part of that support. (No. the BF2 doesn't support BF1. At best, it goes against it.)

E) The first is a belief against which evidence is offered (No. No evidence against BF1 is offered. The BF2 is against a strategy in the 1st sentence and not against BF1); the second is part of the evidence offered against that belief. (No. The BF2 is against a strategy in the 1st sentence and not against BF1)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive title

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

Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive title

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