When a laptop computer needs maintenance, it is often shipped to a cen

The paragraph mentions that the cost of decentralization will be the same, i.e there is no additional cost involved for hiring new workers etc. So, even if more laptops need maintenance it actually doesn't matters.

As for.improving RC, I am not expert or a tutor. Maybe experts in this forum can help. All I can say is practice more, soon you'll be able to find patterns in the questions.

Posted from my mobile device

Can you solve the other CR question I posted today

whats shocking about it. I got ti right in first go!

There should be another line of reasoning why decentralization will be successful. It clearly states when they go to local units they will pack carefully rather than the centralised unit. So it gives another reason why it will be successful

+1 for option B. What is the linkage here ? Transit damage has to be minimized and decentralization has financial advantages. Any option that strengthens these points has to be the answer. Option E is a trap. Are we concerned about the technical prowess of the part time staff ? No - It does not figure in our linkage. B on the other hand is in line with our pre-thinking !

It is an awful queston. Buy all options are so bad, that the only one that can be chosen as an answer is B.

But what sense in this question?
Customers who take their laptop computers to local technicians pack their computers extremely carefully to avoid causing further problems in transit.
And when they send it to a central location for service they fo not pack their computers extremly carefully?

Hi Experts,
This is what I understood from the passage.
MP techs??? aim is ???to reduce the risk of.....???. And in order to achieve that, they have hired local technicians who provide services in the cities locally. Doesn???t all this mean that the customers can get their laptops serviced at these locations and they do not need to send their laptops away at all?
Based on this, I chose D. Less the frequency of ???transit???, reduction in transit damage.

Please help.

Thanks.

A weakens the argument, C and D are out of scope.
E is wrong b/c working experience does not relate to the main idea of the argument. Also, E is about local vs centralized while the argument just says "hire technicians across the country"

if the customers are packing the laptops properly, then doesn't it weakens the argument. As, it will be more convenient for the company to ship the better packed product.

While D, mentions the frequency of service, hence the number of transits which would in turn increase costs .

GMATNinja daagh abhimahna

Hey apurv09 ,

I am happy to help

Looks like you didn't understand this goal plan question properly.

Goal: Avoid any transit problems.

Plan: Hire local technicians

We need to say, yes this is a good plan. Once I hire these technicians I am not going to have any transit problems.

This question is lying on the assumption that when I take my PC to these local technicians, I am perfectly fine as compared to the case when I was sending my PC to different cities.

Now, option B is saying the same. It is saying, yes I am taking these very carefully to the local technicians. Hence, it is correct.

You much be thinking why can't we be safe while we take it outside? My friend, we are being told in the question that there is going to be a loss in transit across the cities. This is a premise which needs to be considered a source of truth. You cannot say, we won't have any loss. Author said it is a loss, no we have to admit it.

Does that make sense?

doesn't B weaken the argument? B says customers already pack their PCs when they take it to local center to avoid damage during transit - there is already minimal damage during transit that placing local technician doesnt help in reducing the damage during transit it is already minimized in the 1st place as customers have already packed the PC to repair very carefully?

doesn't B weaken the argument? B says customers already pack their PCs when they take it to local center to avoid damage during transit - there is already minimal damage during transit that placing local technician doesnt help in reducing the damage during transit it is already minimized in the 1st place as customers have already packed the PC to repair very carefully?

For some reason I always fail to follow the logic of the GMAT Hacks questions as well as I do the other questions (including GMAC’s questions). However, this question was one of the few GMAT Hacks questions that “clicked “for me. Rare indeed.....

As I think someone mentioned previously, we have to take as definitive facts the premises provided. So we know that there is a chance of “jostling” damage if the computer is shipped back and forth from the centralized locations for service.

The author believes the following: in order to prevent the likelihood of this “jostling” damage occurring in transit, we can have Technicians in each city. By doing this, the author believes there will be less of the jostling damage that occurred before.

This is the true Goal of the Plan. I believe the sentences regarding cost are put in to distract the reader and make the passage more difficult to read. Stay focused on this Goal.

When looking for any Gaps in the argument, focus on how the author believe this Plan will reach its goal. Ask yourself is there something that might derail this Plan from working?

We know there is a likelihood of jostling damage occurring when the computers are sent to the centralized location b/c we are given this as a Factual Premise.

But will this Plan of using local technicians make it any better and reduce the chance of this jostling damage? Or is there some other fact that would enter the picture and keep the Plan from working such that we are still likely to have this type of in transit damage?


I tend to think along these lines to see the gaps and assumptions.

We can say the general problem that would derail the Plan from reaching its Goal is if somehow the jostling damage STILL occurs even though we are using these local MPs. Or if somehow these local MPs end up making the problem worse!

To support the argument, our jobs is to look for the Answer that provides a Fact that gives us a reason to believe that using these local MPs might actually result in less of this type of in transit damage. The correct Strengthen Answer will give us a fact that makes it seem more likely that the Plan will work.

By showing that the customers wrap the computers very carefully when they send it to these local techs, it makes it more likely that the Plan will reach the Goal of reducing the jostling damage in transit.

The thing is, we are not told what the people do when they ship the computers to the centralized locations in the first scenario. The answer choice only tells us what they do when they send the computers to the local techs (and this is enough). Maybe they wrap them carefully when they send the computers to the centralized locations. Maybe they do not.

Just because the fact in the AC tells us that most ppl wrap the computer well when they bring them to these local MPs, this does NOT necessarily mean they wrap them well when they send them to the centralized location.

It could be the case that most ppl use UPS and trust them to take care of the packaging (and UPS does a crappy job, leading to jostling damage in transit). Or what u said could be true: because they wrap them well when bringing them to the MPs, they might similarly wrap them well when they send them to the centralized location. Thus why would we need the MPs?

We just don’t know given the passage or the AC. However, in the end, it does not really matter if either case is true. We need to strengthen the likelihood that using the MPs as outlined in this Plan will lead to less jostling damage (which we are told is likely to happen in transit when the computers are sent to the centralized locations....a Fact we must accept as True).

By focusing on whether the Plan will meet this defined goal, the fact that the ppl pack the computer very well when they send them to the local techs gives us a little more reason to believe that this Plan will work. Using local MPs may just result in less of this type of damage if ppl carefully pack their computers when sending them to the local MPs.

I feel “jostled” after writing that word so many times.....

I hope something helped. The GMAT Hacks questions at the 700 level, in my opinion, tend to be pretty hard.

I think D will be the answer. The question asked here is about the "evidence that using local technicians will help MP Tech achieve its goal". The goal is not regarding the prevention of damage during transit, but to determine the economic feasibility of keeping the trained personnel at localised centres.