Fast food chains constantly face the problem of low employee retention

Question

Fast food chains constantly face the problem of low employee retention, to counter which the companies offer high salaries. The companies have come up with the solution of hiring retired people who have a very low attrition rate.  However, their time taken to service an order is more and they require going through long training programs at regular intervals . Thus, for most fast food chains the gain in employee retention does not compensate for the increase in time taken to serve each customer. Nevertheless, since  the customers continue to be more appreciative when served by retired people , their employment is likely to become an industry-wide feature.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a consideration raised to support a conclusion, which is disputed in the argument; the second is a fact that goes against the intermediate conclusion of the argument.

B. The first is evidence used to support a conclusion that goes against the main conclusion of the argument; the second is a fact that the argument seeks to explain.

C. The first is an objection raised to a proposed solution; the second is evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of that objection.

D. The first is a circumstance cited to support a conclusion; the second is a consideration that goes in favor of a position not supported by that conclusion.

E. The first is a judgment that supports the main conclusion drawn by the author; the second is a claim that supports the intermediate conclusion.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

Abhishek009 · Answer

IMHO (D)

Contra   : However , their time taken to service an order is more and they require going through long training programs at regular intervals. 
  Conclusion :   Thus , for most fast food chains the gain in employee retention does not compensate for the increase in time taken to serve each customer. 
  Main Conclusion  :  Nevertheless, since the customers continue to be more appreciative when served by retired people,  their employment is likely to become an industry-wide feature .

1st sentence presents/supports the conclusion and the last sentence, considers a statement that goes against the intermediary conclusion

sippy01032003 · Answer

Hi, I am not able to understand the solution very well, can you please provide the OE?
Thank You!

Andrew89 · Answer

Can you explain why not C ?
The first is clearly an objection raised to a proposed solution  (The companies have come up with the solution of hiring retired people) ; the second is evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of that objection.

CodingGmat · Answer

A. The first is a consideration raised to support a conclusion,  which is disputed in the argument; the second is a fact that goes against the intermediate conclusion of the argument.  -> The second doesn’t necessarily directly go against the intermediate conclusion. Moreover the intermediate conclusion is not exaclty disputed in the argument, instead an alternate conclusion is presented. (It may happen that the customers favouring elderly people serving them still might not outweigh the employee attrition.) Close answer tbh.

B. The first is evidence used to support a conclusion that goes against the main conclusion of the argument;  the second is a fact that the argument seeks to explain . -> Even if we consider that the first part is somewhat right, the second part looks incorrect. The argument doesn’t try to explain the highlighted part. Instead it tries to explain the main conclusion: "their employment is likely to become an industry-wide feature."

C. The first is an objection raised to a proposed solution;  the second is evidence that casts doubt on the accuracy of that objection.  -> The second does not cast doubt on the highlighted part in the first.

D. The first is a circumstance cited to support a conclusion; the second is a consideration that goes in favor of a position not supported by that conclusion. -> Correct! The second supports position which is not supported by the former conclusion (which states that the new move of employing older people will not be beneficial). Here take a note that the second part doesn’t attack the intermediate conclusion directly. Instead it just supports a different position.

E.  The first is a judgment that supports the main conclusion drawn by the author ; the second is a claim that supports the intermediate conclusion. -> The first is not the main conclusion. The main conclusion is: "their employment is likely to become an industry-wide feature."

Fast food chains constantly face the problem of low employee retention

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

Fast food chains constantly face the problem of low employee retention

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