An amateur athletic team has the following requirement: "Each athlete who fails to return to his or her designated room...
GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions
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.
Phase 1: Owning the Dataset
Argument Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| "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." |
|
| 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." |
|
| 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." |
|
Argument Structure
- Situation: Best athlete broke curfew before big game
- Coach A's Position: Apply suspension because athlete had control
- Coach B's Position: Use alternative punishment to avoid harming team
- Core Conflict: Rule enforcement vs. team success
Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking
Understanding What Each Part Asks
- Part 1: Find principle supporting Coach A's reasoning (strict enforcement when athlete had control)
- Part 2: Find principle supporting Coach B's reasoning (flexible punishment considering team impact)
- Relationship: These represent opposing philosophies on rule enforcement
Prethinking for Each Part
For Coach A (Supports strict enforcement):- "Rules should be applied equally regardless of player importance"
- "When someone can follow a rule but chooses not to, they should face consequences"
- "Exceptions undermine the integrity of team rules"
- "Punishment should consider broader team impacts"
- "The goal is discipline, not harm to the team"
- "Context matters when determining appropriate consequences"
Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation
Evaluating Each Choice
Choice 1: "Amateur athletic teams should not punish elite team members who break team requirements."
- This says elite athletes shouldn't be punished at all
- Doesn't support Coach A (who wants punishment)
- Doesn't support Coach B (who still wants some punishment)
- Not correct for either
Choice 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."
- This prioritizes team outcomes over specified punishments
- Doesn't support Coach A (who wants specified punishment)
- Strongly supports Coach B (who wants to consider team harm)
- Best for Coach B
Choice 3: "The punishment specified for breaking a team requirement should always be administered in order to ensure that all team members are treated equally."
- This emphasizes equal treatment and following specified punishments
- Supports Coach A's position about no exceptions
- Doesn't support Coach B (who wants flexibility)
- Good for Coach A
Choice 4: "If an athlete is reasonably able to fulfill a team requirement, then the punishment specified for breaking the requirement should be administered."
- This focuses on the athlete's ability to follow the rule
- Strongly supports Coach A (who emphasizes the athlete had control)
- Doesn't support Coach B (doesn't consider team impact)
- Best for Coach A
Choice 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."
- This says no punishment at all if it harms the team
- Doesn't support Coach A (who wants punishment)
- Partially supports Coach B, but he wants alternative punishment, not no punishment
- Not ideal for either
The Correct Answers
For Coach A: Choice 4 - "If an athlete is reasonably able to fulfill a team requirement, then the punishment specified for breaking the requirement should be administered."
- This perfectly captures Coach A's reasoning about the athlete having control over the situation
For Coach B: Choice 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."
- This directly supports Coach B's argument for considering team impact when determining punishment
Common Traps to Highlight
Choice 3 vs Choice 4 for Coach A: While Choice 3 about equal treatment seems to support Coach A, Choice 4 more precisely captures his specific reasoning about the athlete's ability to control the situation.
Choice 5 for Coach B: This might seem attractive because it mentions team harm, but Coach B still wants punishment - just a different kind. Choice 5 advocates for no punishment at all, which doesn't match Coach B's position.