Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they fear that the use of titles indicating position...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Business Consultant: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy. Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however, use of a title can facilitate an executive's dealings with external businesses. Clearly, corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally, since even if it is widely known that the corporation's executives use titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.

In the consultant's reasoning, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.

The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal.

The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem.

The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon.

The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification; the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that.

Solution

Understanding the Passage

Text from Passage	Analysis
(Boldface 1) "Some corporations shun the use of executive titles"	What it says: Certain companies avoid having their executives use formal titles like "Vice President" or "Director" Visualization: Company A eliminates titles (employees are just "team members") vs Company B keeps titles (CEO, VP Sales, Director Marketing) What it does: Introduces one corporate approach to executive titles Source: Business consultant's statement of fact
"because they fear that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to inhibit communication up and down the corporate hierarchy"	What it says: These companies worry that titles create barriers - employees might be afraid to speak freely to someone with an impressive title Visualization: Employee hesitates to share ideas with "Senior Vice President Johnson" vs freely discusses with "Mike from marketing" What it does: Explains the reasoning behind avoiding titles internally Source: Business consultant explaining corporations' reasoning
"Since an executive who uses a title is treated with more respect by outsiders, however, use" (Boldface 2) "of a title can facilitate an executive's dealings with external businesses."	What it says: When dealing with people outside the company, having a title helps because external parties show more respect and cooperation to titled executives Visualization: "Director Smith" from Company A gets better treatment from vendors than "Team Member Smith" - vendors return calls faster, offer better deals What it does: Presents a counterpoint showing benefits of using titles externally Source: Business consultant's contrasting observation
"Clearly, corporations should adopt the compromise of encouraging their executives to use their corporate titles externally but not internally"	What it says: The consultant recommends a solution: executives should use titles when dealing with outside businesses but drop titles for internal company communications Visualization: Same person = "Sarah, team member" in Monday staff meeting, "Sarah Johnson, VP Sales" in Tuesday client meeting What it does: States the consultant's main recommendation/conclusion Source: Business consultant's recommended solution
"since even if it is widely known that the corporation's executives use titles outside their organization, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation"	What it says: Even if everyone inside knows that executives use titles externally, this knowledge won't harm internal communication Visualization: Internal team knows Sarah is "VP Sales" to clients, but still freely shares ideas with "just Sarah" in internal meetings What it does: Provides supporting reasoning for why the compromise solution will work Source: Business consultant's supporting logic

Overall Structure

The consultant presents two opposing considerations about executive titles, then recommends a compromise solution. The flow moves from problem (internal communication issues) to benefit (external respect) to recommended solution (use titles externally only).

Main Conclusion: Corporations should encourage executives to use titles externally but not internally.

Boldface Segments

Boldface 1: Some corporations shun the use of executive titles
Boldface 2: of a title can facilitate an executive's dealings with external businesses

Boldface Understanding

Boldface 1 Analysis:

Function: Introduces one side of the dilemma - companies avoiding titles due to communication concerns
Direction: Same direction as author's conclusion (supports the need for the proposed compromise)

Boldface 2 Analysis:

Function: Presents the opposing consideration - benefits of titles for external relations
Direction: Same direction as author's conclusion (provides the rationale for using titles externally)

Structural Classification

Boldface 1:

Structural Role: Background information/context setting up one side of the problem
Predicted Answer Patterns: "a consideration that the argument seeks to balance," "background information that motivates the conclusion"

Boldface 2:

Structural Role: Supporting evidence/reason for the consultant's recommended solution
Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence supporting the conclusion," "a consideration that supports the recommendation"

Answer Choices Explained

The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second presents a drawback to that strategy.

'The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem' - ✓ CORRECT - The first boldface describes corporations shunning titles as a strategy to avoid the problem of inhibited internal communication. 'the second presents a drawback to that strategy' - ✓ CORRECT - The second boldface shows that avoiding titles creates a disadvantage in external business dealings.

'The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem' - ✓ CORRECT - Same as above, accurately describes the first boldface. 'the second is a consideration raised to call into question the effectiveness of that strategy as a means of achieving that goal' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't question whether avoiding titles effectively prevents communication problems; it simply presents a separate disadvantage.

The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem; the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem.

'The first describes a strategy that has been adopted to avoid a certain problem' - ✓ CORRECT - Accurately describes the first boldface. 'the second is a consideration the consultant raises in questioning the significance of that problem' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface doesn't question how significant internal communication problems are; it introduces a completely different concern about external relationships.

The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon; the second is that phenomenon.

'The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain phenomenon' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface doesn't explain a phenomenon; it simply states what some corporations do. 'the second is that phenomenon' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface is not the phenomenon being explained; it's a separate consideration about external benefits.

The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification; the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that.

'The first describes a policy for which the consultant seeks to provide a justification' - ✗ WRONG - The consultant doesn't seek to justify the policy of shunning titles; instead, the consultant proposes a different compromise solution. 'the second is a consideration the consultant raises as part of that' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface isn't part of justifying the shunning strategy; it actually shows why that strategy is problematic.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...