Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 14:24 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 14:24

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Kudos
Tags:
Difficulty: Sub 505 Levelx   Weakenx                     
Show Tags
Hide Tags
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64899 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
VP
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1262
Own Kudos [?]: 201 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Posts: 69
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
WE:Operations (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]
With employer-paid training, workers have the potential to become more productive not only in their present employment but also in any number of jobs with different employers. To increase the productivity of their workforce, many firms are planning to maintain or even increase their investments in worker training. But some training experts object that if a trained worker is hired away by another firm, the employer that paid for the training has merely subsidized a competitor. They note that such hiring has been on the rise in recent years.
Conclusion: the employer that paid for the training has merely subsidized a competitor
Which of the following would, if true, contribute most to defeating the training experts’ objection to the firms’ strategy?

A. Firms that promise opportunities for advancement to their employees get, on average, somewhat larger numbers of job applications from untrained workers than do firms that make no such promise. irrelevant

B. In many industries, employees who take continuing-education courses are more competitive in the job market.may or may not be true, but this does not weaken the argument in any way.

C. More and more educational and training institutions are offering reduced tuition fees to firms that subsidize worker training.tuition cost is not relevant to the argument.

D. Research shows that workers whose training is wholly or partially subsidized by their employer tend to get at least as much training as do workers who pay for all their own training.whether training is wholly or partially subsidized does not affect the argument.

E. For most firms that invest in training their employees, the value added by that investment in employees who stay exceeds the value lost through other employees’ leaving to work for other companies this weakens the argument by saying that the benefits of training outweighs the lost of employee to a competitor
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17213
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne