When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as

Question

When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters. It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Therefore, companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company’s initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others.

(B) Some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, or technical matters.

(C) New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than when they must secure funding or skills from nonfounders.

(D) Founders of a new company can more easily acquire marketing and management abilities than technical abilities.

(E) A new company is more likely to succeed if its technical experts are also skilled in management and marketing than if they lack management or marketing skills.

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Nice defender assumption question.

First of all, when we see this kind of question, a correct answer is the one that could eliminate the weakness of a conclusion. ANALYZE THE STIMULUS: Fact: When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters. Fact: It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Conclusion: companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals. Pre-thinking: what if a single founder who only has funding can hire non-founder members who have skills in marketing, management and technical matters? Clearly, a company can be successful. <==This is a weakness of the conclusion. Assumption: The defender assumption should eliminate the weakness above. Thus, the assumption should be “it is likely that a company founded by an individual, who often hires non-founder members having skills in business, is less successful than a company founded by group of founders. ANALYZE EACH ANSWER: A) A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company’s initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others. Wrong. The equal contribution does not help to bolster the conclusion. A can’t be an assumption. B) Some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, or technical matters. Wrong. B does not violate the conclusion. It’s true that some founding members can provide both funding and skills. But B does not help to elucidate why companies founded by groups are more likely to be successful than companies founded by individuals. C) New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than when they must secure funding or skills from non-founders. Correct. C clearly ELIMINATES the weakness of the conclusion. C is the correct defender assumption. D) Founders of a new company can more easily acquire marketing and management abilities than technical abilities. Wrong. Nothing to compare here. D is out scope. E) A new company is more likely to succeed if its technical experts are also skilled in management and marketing than if they lack management or marketing skills. Wrong. Same error as in D. The comparison between each founding members does not help at all. E is not relevant. Hope it helps a bit.

schittuluri · Answer

I go with "E".

C and E are best contenders. In C it is saying about non founders which is not at all mentioned in the argument.

cssk · Answer

How can E be a contender?

Conculsion of the argument:  companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.

E says a new company is likely to succeed if its technical experts are also skilled in management and marketing than if they lack management or marketing skills. Negating this answer choice would in no way hurt the conclusion that is mainly concerned with the likelihood of the success of companies founded by groups.

In contrast, choice C says that new companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than when they must secure funding or skills from nonfounders. Ah yes. Now this choice  assures the success of new companies if their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management and technical abilities . Moreover, if you negate this choice, the conclusion definitely falls apart. Hence this is the best choice.

Do you agree?

bluetrain · Answer

It seems logical.
But argument is

companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.

Founded by groups / Founded by individuals

So (C) which is about non-founders seems irrelevant for me.

Please experts help.

mikemcgarry

dcwanderer30 · Answer

Can an expert please give an explanation as to why the answer is C? Thanks!

bidskamikaze · Answer

When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters. It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Therefore, companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

{Gaps that are evident in the argument: 1) What if individual founders are able to secure funding, expertise, etc. from outside? 2) What if ONLY people with more than adequate money, skills, and expertise start a company as individual founders?}

(A) A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company’s initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others.
 - INCORRECT. Whether they contribute equally or not equally might not matter at all, as no such indication is given in the argument.

(B) Some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, or technical matters.
 - IRRELEVANT.

(C) New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than when they must secure funding or skills from nonfounders.
 - CORRECT! This is in line with our pre-thinking.

(D) Founders of a new company can more easily acquire marketing and management abilities than technical abilities.
 - IRRELEVANT

(E) A new company is more likely to succeed if its technical experts are also skilled in management and marketing than if they lack management or marketing skills.
 - True in general, but doesn't need to be assumed in this argument.

Answer C.

3mrecan · Answer

I thought B is restated premise and does not help us to justify the conclusion, therefore incorrect. C perfectly fits as "unstated premise" and decently closing the gap between conclusion and premises.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:

When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters. 
It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters.

Conclusion:   Companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.

From where did success come into the picture? The conclusion is concluding about the success of the venture. The author is assuming that the success depends on who is providing the funds and skills. It makes sense that funds and skills are needed to succeed. But a single individual could provide just the funds and get skills from non founders. Why is she less likely to succeed? Because the author assumes that both funds and skills should come from founders.

(C) New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than when they must secure funding or skills from nonfounders.

Hence (C) works.

(A) A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company’s initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others.

Not correct. No discussion on the amount of contribution of each founding member.

(B) Some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, or technical matters.

The author gives in premises that it is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Hence he is not assuming that some founding members can provide both.

(D) Founders of a new company can more easily acquire marketing and management abilities than technical abilities.

Out of scope. No discussion on comparison between various skills.

(E) A new company is more likely to succeed if its technical experts are also skilled in management and marketing than if they lack management or marketing skills.

No mention of founding members. This option simply talks about technical experts who may or may not be founding members. Irrelevant.

Answer (C)

MalachiKeti · Answer

When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters. It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Therefore, companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.

Conclusion: Single founder vs Many co-founders should be key focus.
The first Q that came to my mind was why are we just thinking of founders, why cant a single founder hire few employees that help fill in the gaps in skills that founder doesn't have?
Anyway:) This is the answer so we will see.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company’s initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others.
  Equal funding vs Unequal funding - nowhere is this even mentioned. Eliminate

(B) Some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, or technical matters. 
 Ok - what do I do of this statement? Its just a good fact/info to know. Eliminate

(C) New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than when they must secure funding or skills from nonfounders. 
 Exactly what pre-thinking suggested. If you negate this whole conclusion falls apart.

(D) Founders of a new company can more easily acquire marketing and management abilities than technical abilities. 
Why are we making a distinction between marketing vs technical?  We are talking of all of these skills together vs funding ability. In technical terms skills used for running operations vs investment relations. Eliminate

(E) A new company is more likely to succeed if its technical experts are also skilled in management and marketing than if they lack management or marketing skills. 
 Exactly same useless reasoning as in statement D. Eliminate

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.

When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as

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

When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as

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