An amateur athletic team has the following requirement: "Each athlete

Question

An amateur athletic team has the following requirement: "Each athlete who fails to return to his or her designated room prior to a designated time will be suspended for the next athletic event." The requirement was violated by the team's best athlete on the night before a prominent athletic event.

Assistant Coach A: The only reason to not suspend the athlete is if the athlete broke the requirement because of factors outside the athlete's control. Since that was not the reason, no exception should be made for this athlete.

Assistant Coach B: I know that we would normally punish the athlete with a suspension, but doing so in this case would harm the team. I think we should punish the athlete in another way that would not harm the team.

Select for  Supports Assistant Coach A  the principle that most strongly supports the reasoning expressed by Assistant Coach A, and select for  Supports Assistant Coach B  the principle that most strongly supports the reasoning expressed by Assistant Coach B. Make only two selections, one in each column.

ID: 700196

chetan2u · Accepted Answer

SK, it is from DI review. I’ll add the explanation below

An amateur athletic team has the following requirement: "Each athlete who fails to return to his or her designated room prior to a designated time will be suspended for the next athletic event." The requirement was violated by the team's best athlete on the night before a prominent athletic event.
 Requirement: Each athlete should reach the designated room before expiry of a certain deadline kept, failing which the player will be the suspended.
The team's best athlete did not reach in time before an important event.

Assistant Coach A: The only reason to not suspend the athlete is if the athlete broke the requirement because of factors outside the athlete's control. Since that was not the reason, no exception should be made for this athlete.
 Coach A says that the player in question could have been on time as the reasons were not out of his control. So, the player should be suspended as he did not meet the criteria for exception.

Assistant Coach B: I know that we would normally punish the athlete with a suspension, but doing so in this case would harm the team. I think we should punish the athlete in another way that would not harm the team.
 Coach B does not question the statement of A, but feels that suspension would affect the next days game, and another way should be found to punish the athlete withour harming the interest of team.

We have to find principle that support each.

1. Amateur athletic teams should not punish elite team members who break team requirements.
 None of coach A and B is against giving punishment to the athlete. So, does not support stand of any of the two coaches

​​​​​​2. The punishment of a team member for breaking a team requirement should be based on the likely outcomes for the team rather than the punishment specified for breaking the requirement.
 Now, this is exactly the point of B. Do punish the athlete but in a way not to harm the team, and suspension would harm the team.   Keep for Coach B.

3. The punishment specified for breaking a team requirement should always be administered in order to ensure that all team members are treated equally.
 A  trap . Coach A never uses the word 'should always'. He talks of an exception, that is if the reasons are out of control of the athlete, the athlete should not be punished.

4. If an athlete is reasonably able to fulfill a team requirement, then the punishment specified for breaking the requirement should be administered.
 This is what coach A meant. If an athlete is able to fulfill a requirement ( reaching before a designated time here), that is there are no factors out of his control, then the athlete should be punished.  
 Meets the criteria given by A for exception. Keep for Coach A.

5. If a punishment of a team member specified by a team requirement would harm the team, then the team member should not be punished.
 Again a  trap.  Coach B never says 'should not'. He just says that the punishment should be there but in a manner that does not harm the team.

Both the trap options have used word 'should' very subtly so as to attract a student towards these choices.

Answer: 4 and 2

KarishmaB · Answer

Here is how I would solve it:

Requirement: "Each athlete who returns late, will be suspended for the next event."
The requirement was violated by the team's best athlete on the night before a prominent athletic event.

Coach A: The only reason to not suspend the athlete is if the athlete broke the requirement because of factors outside the athlete's control. Since that was not the reason, no exception should be made for this athlete.

He is saying that if the athlete could have adhered to the requirement, then he should be suspended (the designated punishment)
Only exception - Factors beyond his control - say traffic jams or some other disruption

Coach B: I know that we would normally punish the athlete with a suspension, but doing so in this case would harm the team. I think we should punish the athlete in another way that would not harm the team.

He is saying that we should make an exception here since it will harm the team. The desginated punishment should be given only when it doesn't harm the team.

We need a general principle for each. Let's look at the options:

Amateur athletic teams should not punish elite team members who break team requirements.

NO one says no punishment. So ignore.

The punishment of a team member for breaking a team requirement should be based on the likely outcomes for the team rather than the punishment specified for breaking the requirement.

Correct. Coach B  does say that the punishment should depend on the impact on the team, not the punishment designated.

The punishment specified for breaking a team requirement should always be administered in order to ensure that all team members are treated equally

No coach says "specified punishment should always be administered." Coach A also gives an exception.

If an athlete is reasonably able to fulfill a team requirement, then the punishment specified for breaking the requirement should be administered.

Correct. Coach A  says that if the athlete could have fulfilled the requirement, then the desginated punishment should be given.

If a punishment of a team member specified by a team requirement would harm the team, then the team member should not be punished.

No one says don't punish. Both agree that some punishment must be given.

SKDEV · Answer

can official explanation be posted for this  chetan2u  , I couldnt find this question in DI review 23-24 book

or  KarishmaB  can you please help with this ?

Maxsparrow · Answer

We are waiting... Because I got super far from the OA
I choose 3 & 5 T_T

chetan2u · Answer

Maxsparrow 
I ahve added the explanation. See if it helps.

nikitathegreat · Answer

MartyMurray   GMATNinja  - Can you please explain the support assistant A - why is ans not C and is and D?

Gemmie · Answer

Supports Assistant Coach A:

Principle:   If an athlete is reasonably able to fulfill a team requirement, then the punishment specified for breaking the requirement should be administered. 
 This principle supports Assistant Coach A’s argument that since the athlete was reasonably able to fulfill the requirement, the specified punishment should be administered.

Why not "The punishment specified for breaking a team requirement should always be administered in order to ensure that all team members are treated equally." 
 => There are still exceptions allowed by Coach A (which addressed by the phrase "able to fulfill a team requirement")

Supports Assistant Coach B:

Principle:     The punishment of a team member for breaking a team requirement should be based on the likely outcomes for the team rather than the punishment specified for breaking the requirement.  
This principle supports Assistant Coach B’s argument that the punishment should consider the outcomes for the team, suggesting an alternative punishment to avoid harming the team.

Why not "If a punishment of a team member specified by a team requirement would harm the team, then the team member should not be punished."
=> The violating team member is still suggested by Coach B to be punished, just in a different way

Why not "Amateur athletic teams should not punish elite team members who break team requirements."
=> Coach B's reasoning is not about whether the member is elite but rather whether the punishment will affect the team's success

A. · Answer

I don't get Option D for Coach A : if team requirement is fulfilled then why he should be punished ??? Why it need to be administered?

If an athlete is reasonably able to fulfill a team requirement, then the punishment specified for breaking the requirement should be administered.

BongBideshini · Answer

I also have the same doubt

ManifestDreamMBA · Answer

I can give the explanation a try.

Coach A said that if there was no reason outside the athlete's control, then he should be punished. Say, there was something unpredictable e.g. there was a storm, some kind of emergency, etc., then the player should not be punished but since that didn't happen, he mentions no exception should be made.  
 Note, he is not taking about equal treatment as one would assume. he didn't say that the punishment should be given, irrespective of how important or talented the player is

Option D captures the same logic, by saying If an athlete is  reasonably able to fulfil a team requirement (indicating nothing outside of their control or nothing unpredictable) , then the punishment specified for breaking the requirement should be administered.

egmat · Answer

You've misread option D (option 4).

The Critical Misreading: 
You read: "If team requirement is  fulfilled ..."
But it actually says: "If an athlete is reasonably  able to fulfill  a team requirement..."

What Option D Really Means: 
Option D is saying: If the athlete  COULD HAVE  met the requirement (was reasonably able to),  THEN  when they  BREAK  that requirement, the specified punishment should be given.

Let me break down the logic:
1. The athlete was  reasonably able  to return to their room on time (no outside factors prevented them)
2.  Therefore , when they broke this requirement, they should receive the specified punishment

Why This Supports Coach A: 
Coach A's argument is: "The only reason to not suspend would be if factors outside the athlete's control caused the violation. Since that wasn't the case, no exception should be made."

This perfectly aligns with Option D:
- The athlete  WAS  reasonably able to fulfill the requirement (no outside factors)
-  Therefore , the punishment should be administered

Key Insight:  Option D creates a rule:  Ability to comply → Must face consequences when you don't

This is different from saying "if you comply, you get punished" - that would make no sense!

Answer: D supports Coach A, B supports Coach B

Hope this clears up the confusion! The word "able" is crucial here - it's about having the  capacity  to follow the rule, not about actually following it.

An amateur athletic team has the following requirement: "Each athlete

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

Supports Assistant Coach A	Supports Assistant Coach B
		Amateur athletic teams should not punish elite team members who break team requirements.
		The punishment of a team member for breaking a team requirement should be based on the likely outcomes for the team rather than the punishment specified for breaking the requirement.
		The punishment specified for breaking a team requirement should always be administered in order to ensure that all team members are treated equally.
		If an athlete is reasonably able to fulfill a team requirement, then the punishment specified for breaking the requirement should be administered.
		If a punishment of a team member specified by a team requirement would harm the team, then the team member should not be punished.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

An amateur athletic team has the following requirement: "Each athlete

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