A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company's warranty....

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company's warranty. The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.

The argument above assumes which of the following?

There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.

There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.

Ace Repairs' warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.

Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.

There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be reworked under the company's warranty.	What it says: Ace Repairs has to redo many of their complex repair jobs under warranty What it does: Sets up the problem that needs explaining What it is: Author's factual claim about company performance Visualization: Out of \(\mathrm{100\ complex\ repairs} \rightarrow \mathrm{40{-}50\ need\ reworking}\)
The reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory.	What it says: When they redo the jobs, they always turn out fine What it does: Adds a key detail that contrasts with the initial failure pattern What it is: Author's observation about rework quality Visualization: \(\mathrm{40{-}50\ failed\ jobs} \rightarrow \mathrm{when\ redone} \rightarrow \mathrm{40{-}50\ successful\ jobs\ (100\%\ success\ rate)}\)
When initial repairs are inadequate, therefore, it is not because the mechanics lack competence; rather, there is clearly a level of focused concentration that complex repairs require that is elicited more reliably by rework jobs than by first-time jobs.	What it says: Poor initial repairs aren't due to lack of skill, but because rework jobs get better focus than first-time jobs What it does: Provides the author's explanation for why first attempts fail but reworks succeed What it is: Author's main conclusion and reasoning

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with a problem (many complex repairs need reworking), adds a crucial detail (reworks always succeed), then uses this pattern to rule out one explanation (lack of competence) and propose another (difference in concentration levels between first-time and rework jobs).

Main Conclusion:

The reason initial complex repairs fail isn't because mechanics lack skill, but because rework jobs naturally get more focused concentration than first-time jobs.

Logical Structure:

The author uses the fact that reworks always succeed to argue that mechanics are competent, then claims the success difference must be due to varying levels of concentration between first-time jobs and rework jobs.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe to be true for their conclusion to hold. The author concludes that rework jobs get better focus/concentration than first-time jobs, which explains why reworks succeed while initial repairs often fail.

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve quality comparisons (rework jobs are invariably satisfactory vs initial jobs often fail) and activity differences (focused concentration levels between rework vs first-time jobs). The author makes a definitive claim about mechanics' competence (they don't lack it) and concentration patterns.

Strategy

To find assumptions, we need to identify ways the conclusion could be falsified while keeping the stated facts intact. The facts we must respect: many complex repairs need reworking, reworked jobs are invariably satisfactory. We'll look for gaps between these facts and the conclusion about concentration levels being the key difference.

Answer Choices Explained

There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.

'There is no systematic difference in membership between the group of mechanics who do first-time jobs and the group of those who do rework jobs.' The author claims that concentration levels, not competence, explain why rework jobs succeed while first-time jobs often fail. But what if different mechanics handle these different types of jobs? If senior mechanics always handle rework while junior mechanics handle first-time jobs, then the success difference would be due to skill levels, not concentration. For the author's conclusion to work, we must assume similar mechanics handle both job types. This assumption is essential - without it, the argument crumbles. This is correct.

There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.

'There is no company that successfully competes with Ace Repairs for complex repair jobs.' The author's argument focuses on internal patterns at Ace Repairs - why their rework jobs succeed while first-time jobs often fail. Whether other companies exist or compete has no bearing on this internal explanation about concentration levels versus competence. The argument would work exactly the same whether Ace has competitors or holds a monopoly. This is not an assumption.

Ace Repairs' warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.

'Ace Repairs' warranty is good on first-time jobs but does not cover rework jobs.' This misunderstands the warranty setup. The passage states that rework jobs happen 'under the company's warranty,' meaning the warranty covers the rework when first-time jobs fail. The specific warranty terms don't affect the author's explanation about why concentration differs between job types. This is not an assumption.

Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.

'Ace Repairs does not in any way penalize mechanics who have worked on complex repair jobs that later had to be reworked.' The author's argument is about concentration levels during different types of jobs, not about workplace policies or consequences after job completion. Whether mechanics face penalties or not doesn't impact the core claim that rework jobs naturally elicit better focus than first-time jobs. This is not an assumption.

There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.

'There is no category of repair jobs in which Ace Repairs invariably carries out first-time jobs satisfactorily.' The argument specifically discusses complex repair jobs where many first attempts fail. Whether Ace succeeds at other job categories (like simple repairs) is irrelevant to explaining the pattern within complex repairs. The author's concentration-based explanation for complex repairs stands regardless of performance in other categories. This is not an assumption.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...