It is currently 19 Feb 2018, 14:12

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

With employer-paid training, workers have the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Top Contributor
4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Status: I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Joined: 11 May 2014
Posts: 563
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GPA: 2.81
WE: Business Development (Real Estate)
With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2017, 00:41
4
This post received
KUDOS
Top Contributor
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

90% (01:28) correct 10% (01:57) wrong based on 981 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

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.
B. In many industries, employees who take continuing-education courses are more competitive in the job market.
C. More and more educational and training institutions are offering reduced tuition fees to firms that subsidize worker training.
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.
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

The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2018

Practice Question
Critical Reasoning
Question No.: 546
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Md. Abdur Rakib

Please Press +1 Kudos,If it helps
Sentence Correction-Collection of Ron Purewal's "elliptical construction/analogies" for SC Challenges

Top Contributor
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 518
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2017, 19:06
1
This post received
KUDOS
Top Contributor
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Here is the simplified argument --

if a trained worker is hired away by another firm, the employer that paid for the training has merely subsidized a competitor --> training experts object to increasing investments in worker training.

Let us take a look at the answer options --

Option A - Incorrect

If they get larger number of untrained workers, then more money needs to be invested in training them (and very likely these people after receiving the training move on to competitor companies). This strengthens the training experts' objection.

Option B - Incorrect

more competitive => more likely to switch to other companies. this also strengthens the argument.

Option C - Incorrect

But still the investment that the firms made is lost if employees jump jobs.

Option D - Incorrect

If they get the same amount of training, companies could ask the employees to fund their own training. No need to invest in worker training.

Option E - Correct answer

this means that even if some employees quit, the investment generates some positive value. this directly attacks the training experts' conclusion that investment in worker training is pointless.
_________________

Join Free 4 part MBA Through GMAT Video Training Series here -
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/mba-through-gmat-video-2018

Enroll for our GMAT Trial Course here -
http://gmatonline.crackverbal.com/

For more info on GMAT and MBA, follow us on @AskCrackVerbal

Study Buddy Forum Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 674
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jun 2017, 17:39
Hi GMATNinja
Conclusion: A competitor company would have to pay less for training an employee
if he is already trained by previous company for productivity.
I was not able to come up will with correct structure and eventually ended up marking C as OA thinking : if other institutes are offering less fees to employees to train them hence it can disprove that previous employer had to bear training expenses.
Can you help with my understanding?
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.


Last edited by adkikani on 29 Jun 2017, 15:59, edited 1 time in total.
VP
VP
User avatar
P
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1130
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
CAT Tests
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2017, 09:12
Imo E
even if some employees leave the company which paid for their training , bulk of the employees still remain .
So value added is greater than the value lost , hence E is the answer.
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Posts: 22
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GRE 1: 310 Q164 V146
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2017, 18:05
straight E..

researchers say the employer aid training is pointless, but E says, even if workers switch jobs, they will have positive values gained by the previous employer, thus training is not pointless.
rest all options are out of scope.
_________________

princeton-1: 470
princeton-2: 590
princeton-3: 460
princeton-4: 610
gmat club cat: 620
manhatten-1: 680
veritas: 650
princeton-5: 700
princeton-6: 610
manhatten-2: 740
kaplan: 750
princeton-7: 700
manhatten-3: 780
gmat prep 1: 770
princeton-8: 680
manhatten-4: 780
princeton-9: 710
gmat prep 2: 740
manhatten-5: 780
princeton-10: 710

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7938
Location: Pune, India
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2017, 04:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
AbdurRakib wrote:
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.

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.
B. In many industries, employees who take continuing-education courses are more competitive in the job market.
C. More and more educational and training institutions are offering reduced tuition fees to firms that subsidize worker training.
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.
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

The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2018

Practice Question
Critical Reasoning
Question No.: 546


Responding to a pm:

- With employer-paid training, workers become more productive.
- To increase the productivity, 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.

What is the "training experts’ objection to the firms’ strategy"?
That workers leave after training and in effect, a competitor gets a productive worker without paying for it. So it may not be a good idea to pay for worker training.

What will defeat the objection?

If overall, the company sees a net positive return i.e. paying for worker training is worth it for the company then the objection is defeated. That is what (E) says:
- 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

The net value that the company gets is positive. The employees who stay more than make up for the value lost. So it makes sense for the company to invest in worker training.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jun 2016
Posts: 140
CAT Tests
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2017, 10:18
Well CRs are very confusing for me to wrap my head around -- not sure when to take an extra leap of judgement and when to stick to the exact argument.

Here is the argument:
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.

Looking strictly at the argument, it does not talk about "net value" from the investment in workers' training. It talks about "subsidizing" another competitor.
Now, even if E is to be true, the argument above is still valid -- you are potentially still subsidizing your competitors.

I guess, my question is, how do we extrapolate that the emphasis of the training experts argument is about "find net positive value of the investment" and not much about as competitive strategy (incentivizing competitors by supplying them with trained employees)?
Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7938
Location: Pune, India
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jul 2017, 04:06
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
sevenplusplus wrote:
Well CRs are very confusing for me to wrap my head around -- not sure when to take an extra leap of judgement and when to stick to the exact argument.

Here is the argument:
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.

Looking strictly at the argument, it does not talk about "net value" from the investment in workers' training. It talks about "subsidizing" another competitor.
Now, even if E is to be true, the argument above is still valid -- you are potentially still subsidizing your competitors.

I guess, my question is, how do we extrapolate that the emphasis of the training experts argument is about "find net positive value of the investment" and not much about as competitive strategy (incentivizing competitors by supplying them with trained employees)?



You have to look at the implication of what is said.

"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."

It implies loss of value to the trainer. That the employer who paid for training got no value. His money got used to just subsidise a competitor. That he himself did not get value for his money. The argument is written this way only to point out the irony. We don't really have much to do with the competitor angle.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
V
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Posts: 417
Location: United States (MA)
Reviews Badge
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jul 2017, 09:37
Is this question from a new 18 guide?
_________________

本当のライバルは昨日までの自分

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Posts: 51
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2017, 00:39
Premise: 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.

Conclusion: To increase the productivity of their workforce, many firms are planning to maintain or even increase their investments in worker training.

Counter Premise: 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.

We need to weaken the argument - So, we need to find a reason which would tell us why we should continue the training process, even if some employees leave the company.


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.[Out of Scope - We are not concerned with advancement to employees factor. We need to look for a reason to continue the training process. ]

B. In many industries, employees who take continuing-education courses are more competitive in the job market. [Whether they are competitive in the market or not is not our concern, because this cannot be the reason to continue training people.]

C. More and more educational and training institutions are offering reduced tuition fees to firms that subsidize worker training.[Out of context: Even if they are offering a discount, that does not mean that employees after getting trained won't leave the job. And since we are paying money to train, if the employee leaves, we are at a loss.]

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. [This statement compares the amount of training, which is again not our concern, as we want to know what happens after training them?]

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 gives us a reason why we should continue training. So, even if some employees leave, we know that those who are still working would add value which would compensate for those who have left. Thus, that should be a good enough reason to continue training.]

Correct Answer - E.
_________________

Work Hard! Have Fun! Create History! :)

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 148
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q48 V20
WE: Other (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2017, 08:25
+E,.

Trained employers who stay give more value than the one's who leave the organization.

Even if few employee leave,its still more valuable.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When nothing seem to help, I would go and look at a Stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred time without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it would split in two.
And I knew it was not that blow that did it, But all that had gone Before
.

Expert Post
Top Contributor
SVP
SVP
User avatar
P
Joined: 11 Sep 2015
Posts: 2051
Location: Canada
With employer-paid training, workers have the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2017, 13:47
Expert's post
Top Contributor
AbdurRakib wrote:
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.

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.
B. In many industries, employees who take continuing-education courses are more competitive in the job market.
C. More and more educational and training institutions are offering reduced tuition fees to firms that subsidize worker training.
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.
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

PREMISE: Employer-paid training helps with present job and future jobs (with competing companies)
PREMISE: Many firms planning to invest in worker training
CONCLUSION (by some experts): Employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money (if the worker is hired by a competing company)

Our goal here is to find a premise that weakens the experts' conclusion

Let's check the answer choices While also reminding ourselves what the conclusion is...

A) This does not weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer
B) This does not weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer
C) This does not weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer
D) This does not weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer. It has nothing to do with the company's return on investment.
E) This DOES weaken the conclusion that employer-paid training has the potential to be a waste of money for the employer. This premise basically says, "Sure some employees might leave, but the ones who stay more than make up for the ones who leave."

Answer: E
_________________

Brent Hanneson – Founder of gmatprepnow.com

Image

With employer-paid training, workers have the   [#permalink] 27 Nov 2017, 13:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

With employer-paid training, workers have the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.