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.  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.

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

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

(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.

(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.

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

(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.

Technext · Accepted Answer

1st boldface : Some corporations shun the use of executive titles

2nd boldface : use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses

Explanation:
--------------------
 A.)  The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy. ---> Correct. We'll see later why it should be 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. ---> First part of this statement sounds right; the second part is not correct because it ONLY  highlights the importance of using titles externally . The consultant is  not doubtful about achieving the goal  by shunning the use of titles internally.  This is evident from the last part  i.e.,  ...this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication...

He  only  says that the strategy can be disadvantageous w.r.t. external businesses' dealing.

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. ---> Explanation for the first part is OK. In the second part, the consultant is nowhere questioning the ' significance ' of that problem;  he's only trying to bring to light an area ( external businesses' dealing ), which might get affected by adopting this strategy .

He is not totally against shunning the use of title . Had that been the case, he wouldn't have mentioned ' ...corporations should adopt the compromise of... '. Since he mentions  compromise , he is, to some extent, in favor of the first one too.

D.)  The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon. ---> Rubbish; the second part is NO phenomena , and the first is, in no way,  a part of an explanation  of that phenomena.

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 ---> IMO, the consultant doesn't  seek to provide  a justification; he simply puts down what corporations believe.

Moreover, we can also consider how policy is different from strategy.

A policy is a set of guidelines to the members of the organisation. Policy provides and explains what a member should do rather than what he is doing. Policies' enforcement permits prediction of roles with certainty. A policy is what is, or what is not done - it thus implies a rule or some kind of a guide whereas a strategy is the methodology used to accomplish a target as prescribed by a policy!

Corporations make policies for the betterment of organizations and for its employees. Here we can  assume  that it had some policy to reduce communication gap. But what if something that's stated isn't achieved? There comes 'strategy' to accomplish the given target.
--------------------

That's why I think it should be  A  and not option E.

Hope that helps.

icandy · Answer

I chose E.

How do you explain the word drawback in the option A?

The Stem does not say usage of titles will help. Does not say that because they are not using titles they are losing this. It is 
** possible** but not given there.

Technext · Answer

Hi icandy,

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

IMO, the  second  part of option  A   doesn't even say  that if corporations stop the practice of shunning titles, the communication gap will decrease. He, in fact, agrees to some extent that the shunning of titles might help in reducing internal communication barriers. The word  drawback  points to some OTHER part that will get affected. That part which will have a  negative  impact with the adoption of this strategy is  external businesses' dealing .  This  negative  impact is what the word  drawback  refers to . This is what I draw from the sentence.

To be doubly sure, if you go through the  last line  of the excerpt (also mentioned in my explanation for option C), you will notice that  he's not against the corporations' views . It's just that he's trying to get their (corporations') attention to external businesses' dealing, which will have a negative impact because of the implementation of this strategy.

Does it make some sense now?

Regards,
Technext

icandy · Answer

No it does not as I am going word to word.

The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem;

I guess both of us agree that the strategy that is being referred to here is the practice of  Some corporations shun the use of executive titles . A draw back to the strategy would be lack of titles hinder business development with external resources or some thing on similar lines. I can't exactly say that use of titles will help facilitate business developments with external resources is a drawback. My point is the the strategy is fixed in the first part of A and it is the same strategy referred in second part of A

Technext · Answer

------------------
 1st boldface : Some corporations shun the use of executive titles

2nd boldface : use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses

Option A  states the following:
The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.
------------------

Hi icandy,

Yes, we both agree as to what the strategy is.

What I can infer from your comments (“A draw back to the strategy would be  lack of titles  hinder business development with external resources or some thing on similar lines”) is that when you're reading the  2nd boldface  statement,  it mentions a +ve statement about the 'use of titles' w.r.t. external dealings , and this +ve remark is causing problem for you.  You're thinking that the statement is mentioning something +ve, then how come it's a drawback?  Isn't it? Anyone will think the same.

But it seems you’re ONLY & ONLY reading the two boldface statements.  Had I read it in the same way, even I would have raised my concern as you did. As far as I know,  when we consider two boldface statements, we don’t just have to focus on them; we also have to look what’s  before  and what’s  after  them . We also have to look for reasons because of which the author mentioned those two boldface statements.  This will help us in finding out the roles that these boldfaces play .

If you disagree with me on this stand, then tell me why the need for all other sentences, or for that matter, why the need for those two sentences (which boldface fragments are part of) when only the two boldface fragments could have sufficed?

In that case, we could have simply framed the question like this:
======================================================
 1st boldface : Some corporations shun the use of executive titles

2nd boldface : use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses

What roles do the two boldfaces play?
Option 1) ...
Option 2) ...
Option 3) ...
Option 4) ...
======================================================

Let me know your thoughts on this?

Regards,
Technext

icandy · Answer

I have been using the exact wording of the two bold face statements. When I first started out, I looked for the whole meaning. How ever, it just does not make sense to answer the role of the bold faces in the context when the Q it self does not point it out that way. You might say it is implied. If what you are saying is correct, I dont know what to say. Oh well! Good old GMAC! Rules to their whims and fancies.

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

There have been numerous, seriously numerous instances where the Q eliminates other answers strictly based on the words used to refer to the role of bold face. I just dont understand how to make up a strategy for questions on a slippery slope. I as down to A & E and felt that the word drawback makes it more evil compared with the verbiage in E. You feel the contrary that justification is evil compared with drawback.

Edit: It seems the words consultant's reasoning refers to the argument as a whole.

Edit: It seems the words consultant's reasoning refers to the argument as a whole.

Technext · Answer

Rule/Methodology to approach a given type of problem will never change from one question to another; it will always remain the same. I'm very sure that you'll agree with this point. We'll just have to investigate it a little further to get a clear picture. Whenever I'll come across any similar type (obviously with the one that outlines a proper approach to such questions

) problem, I'll post it. Anyways, what's the answer?

grumpyoldman · Answer

Technext is correct. When the question asks "the two portions in boldface play WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ROLES", it is not asking what the portions in boldface mean IN ISOLATION. It is asking how each one is used in the overall argument, i.e., what logical function each one serves IN CONTEXT.

So although the second boldface section is a positive statement, it is a positive statement that results from doing what the strategy AVOIDS doing. Therefore, it identifies a drawback of the strategy.

Technext · Answer

Thanks a lot for clarifying our doubts sir! It was very much needed.

Now we’ll be able to attack these questions with more confidence.

Regards,
Technext

GMATaddict · Answer

I would guess (A), because that's the best description matching both boldface portions.

B - 1st part is right, 2nd part is not about achieving the goal of streamlining communications; the 2nd part discusses a different goal that could be inhibited.
C - 1st part is right, but again, the 2nd part discusses a DIFFERENT problem, not the same problem or its significance.
D - Way off
E - The second boldface part does not justify the first part, in fact, it describes a drawback of that policy.

ykaiim · Answer

Icandy, Good question!!! Initially I marked E but later I found A is correct OA (after checking my reasoning with Technext :wink:

). For the 2nd BF, the key is - 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, ... I think we need to zero-in on why the examiner provided this part (adopt the compromise) of argument. This is the drawback, which Choice A says for not adopting the titles for external businesses.

tanvirkhan77 · Answer

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.

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

(A) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.  ON HOLD 
(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.
(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 .
(D)  The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon .
(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.

D and E are easy out. A holds

v1801philip · Answer

I cannot to wrap my head around the correct answer choice A, which tells that second part is a "drawback" to a strategy - how come exhibiting business title which can facilitate business can be a drawback, if it works, according to the statement?
In this respect, option B seems way more reasonable, which is saying that there is another side to demonstrating titles - not only does it have potential to inhibit communication, but may facilitate business.

sayantanc2k · Answer

1st part: Titles are shunned
2nd part: Titles are useful externally.

Thus the second part shows a drawback to the strategy described in the first part... A is correct.

The objective of shunning tiltes is internal benefits. Option B does not call into question this goal of internal benefits. The strategy has a problem with external dealings, but for benifits in internal dealings, which is the goal of the stratgey, it is effective.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Hello expert,
Could you help on E? Thanks in advance.
I think both A and E are reasonable. As BF1 is a method the writer seeks to justify, and BF2 is parf of his conclusion. Because writer’s conclusion is including two aspects: for internal shunning title is a good way while for external it is not a good way.

GMATNinja · Answer

The consultant concludes that "corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally."

How do BF1 and BF2 relate to the conclusion?

BF1 states that "some corporations shun the use of executive titles." This is the current policy which the consultant wants to revise.   BF2 states that the "use of a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses." This provides a reason for revising the current policy stated in BF1. It also supports the consultant's proposed revision.

Let's now consider (E):
 
Notice that BF1 describes the policy which the consultant wants to  revise , not the policy s/he is trying to justify. In other words, BF1 is the current policy, not the policy which the consultant is trying to justify.

Regarding BF2, notice that it points out a problem with the policy stated in BF1. However, (E) suggests that BF2 serves to justify BF1. So basically, (E) gets the relationship between BF2 and BF1 backwards.

For both the above reasons, we can discard (E).

I hope that helps!

8Harshitsharma · Answer

ChatGPT's response:

Let's revisit the reasoning for the two boldfaced portions and compare options (A) and (E):

BF1: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they fear it inhibits internal communication.
BF2: Using a title can facilitate an executive’s dealings with external businesses.
Option (A)
(A) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.

BF1: Describes a strategy to avoid the problem of inhibited internal communication (not using titles internally).
BF2: Presents a drawback of the strategy (using titles helps with external dealings, implying that not using them might hinder external dealings).
Option (E)
(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.

BF1: Describes the policy of not using titles internally to facilitate better internal communication.
BF2: Provides a consideration about the positive aspect of using titles externally, which supports a compromise policy (use titles externally but not internally).
Analysis
In option (A), it states that the second boldfaced portion presents a drawback to the strategy described in the first boldfaced portion. However, in the argument, the second boldfaced portion (BF2) is not presented as a drawback but rather as a benefit that supports the idea of a compromise.

Option (E) correctly captures the nature of the argument:

The first boldfaced portion (BF1) describes a policy (shunning titles internally).
The second boldfaced portion (BF2) introduces a consideration (external benefits of using titles), which is used to justify a balanced approach (using titles externally but not internally).
Therefore, (E) is more accurate because it aligns with the structure of the argument, where the consultant uses the considerations from BF2 to justify a compromise policy, rather than presenting it as a drawback to the initial strategy.

Option (A) would be correct if the argument presented BF2 solely as a drawback, but since BF2 is used to build towards a balanced recommendation, (E) is the correct answer.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding of the argument - 
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. - Strategy deployed by some corporation and their justifications for adopting it.

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 . - "However" introduces a contrast. This highlights a use case that will remain unattended if the strategy is adopted. A potential drawback.

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. - Conclusion and a supporting premise.

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

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

(B) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem (ok); the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal (the goal is seamless communication up and down the corporate hierarchy. The second boldface doesn't share that the goal is unmet. It just highlights an aspect that has been unaccounted for if the strategy in the first statement is adopted. This doesn't even touch the angle of the goal discussed in the first sentence).

(C) The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem (ok); the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem ("questioning the significance of that problem" is out of scope" and wrong).

(D) The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon (No. it's the other way around); the second is that phenomenon (No).

(E) The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification (No. The consultant is not providing any justification. At best, it is the justification of the corporations and not the consultant); the second is a consideration of the consultant raises as part of that (the second part is not supporting the policy of shunning the use of corporate titles).

nikitathegreat · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja

Are we saying that E option first part - while the justification is given that why some corporates shun the uses of titles - since it inhibits the communications internally but that is not the justification given by the consultant? Also, isn't the second boldface raising consideration - that use of titles can facilitate external businesses.How can consideration seems to mean that it is justifying BF1. I have always taken consdieration as negative connotation. Raising concern -consdieration

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