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

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Consultant: A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be redone under the company's warranty, but when those repairs are redone they are invariably successful. Since we have definitely established that there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs, it is clear that inadequacies in the initial repairs cannot be attributed to the mechanics' lack of competence. Rather, it is likely that complex repairs require a level of focused attention that the company's mechanics apply consistently only to repair jobs that have been inadequately done on the first try.

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

The first is a claim that the consultant rejects as false; the second is evidence that forms the basis for that rejection.

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

The first presents a pattern whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second provides evidence to rule out one possible explanation of that pattern.

The first presents a pattern whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the explanation presented by the consultant.

The first is the position the consultant seeks to establish; the second is offered as evidence for that position.

Solution

Understanding the Passage

Text from Passage	Analysis
(Boldface 1) "A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be redone under the company's warranty, but when those repairs are redone they are invariably successful."	What it says: Many difficult repair jobs at Ace Repairs fail the first time and need to be fixed again under warranty, but when they redo these repairs, they always work perfectly. Visualization: Initial repairs: 100 complex jobs → 40 fail and need warranty redo. Warranty redos: 40 jobs → 40 successful (100% success rate) What it does: This establishes a puzzling pattern that needs explanation - why do redone repairs always succeed when initial repairs often fail? Source: Consultant's factual observation
(Boldface 2) "Since we have definitely established that there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs,"	What it says: The mechanics doing the first repairs and the mechanics doing the warranty repairs are essentially the same - no meaningful difference in their skills or assignments. Visualization: Initial repair team: 10 mechanics with average 8 years experience. Warranty repair team: 10 mechanics with average 8 years experience. No systematic skill gap. What it does: This eliminates the most obvious explanation for the pattern - that different (better) mechanics handle the redos. Source: Consultant's established finding
"it is clear that inadequacies in the initial repairs cannot be attributed to the mechanics' lack of competence."	What it says: Since the same quality mechanics do both types of repairs, the initial failures can't be blamed on the mechanics being incompetent. Visualization: Same mechanics: Initial repairs 60% success vs. Warranty repairs 100% success. Competence level remains constant, so competence isn't the variable causing the difference. What it does: This draws a logical conclusion from the established facts, ruling out mechanic competence as the cause. Source: Consultant's logical deduction
"Rather, it is likely that complex repairs require a level of focused attention that the company's mechanics apply consistently only to repair jobs that have been inadequately done on the first try."	What it says: The real explanation is probably that difficult repairs need intense focus, and mechanics only give this level of attention consistently when they're fixing a job that already failed once. Visualization: Initial repair: Mechanic gives 70% attention level. Warranty repair: Mechanic gives 95% attention level (because it's a known failure). Complex repairs need 90%+ attention to succeed. What it does: This presents the consultant's alternative explanation for the observed pattern. Source: Consultant's proposed theory

Overall Structure

The consultant is explaining a puzzling business pattern by eliminating one obvious cause and proposing an alternative explanation. The logic flows: observation of pattern → elimination of obvious cause → alternative explanation.

Main Conclusion: Complex repairs require focused attention that mechanics consistently apply only to jobs that have already failed once (not to initial repairs).

Boldface Segments

Boldface 1: A significant number of complex repair jobs carried out by Ace Repairs have to be redone under the company's warranty, but when those repairs are redone they are invariably successful.
Boldface 2: there is no systematic difference between the mechanics who are assigned to do the initial repairs and those who are assigned to redo unsatisfactory jobs

Boldface Understanding

Boldface 1:

Function: This presents the puzzling observation that needs explanation - initial repairs often fail but redos always succeed
Direction: Supports the author's conclusion by providing the foundational evidence that motivates the entire analysis

Boldface 2:

Function: This eliminates the most obvious competing explanation (different mechanic quality) to clear the way for the consultant's preferred theory
Direction: Supports the author's conclusion by ruling out alternative explanations and making the consultant's theory more plausible

Structural Classification

Boldface 1:

Structural Role: Empirical observation/evidence that establishes the phenomenon requiring explanation
Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence for the consultant's position", "observation that supports the conclusion", "finding that the consultant seeks to explain"

Boldface 2:

Structural Role: Eliminative evidence that rules out a competing explanation
Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence that supports the consultant's reasoning", "finding that eliminates an alternative explanation", "support for the consultant's conclusion"

Answer Choices Explained

The first is a claim that the consultant rejects as false; the second is evidence that forms the basis for that rejection.

'The first is a claim that the consultant rejects as false' - ✗ WRONG - The consultant accepts the first boldface as true fact, not something to reject
'the second is evidence that forms the basis for that rejection' - ✗ WRONG - Since the consultant doesn't reject the first statement, this part is also incorrect

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

'The first is part of an explanation that the consultant offers for a certain finding' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface presents the puzzling observation that needs explaining, not part of the explanation itself
'the second is that finding' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface is evidence about mechanic similarity, not the main finding being explained

The first presents a pattern whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second provides evidence to rule out one possible explanation of that pattern.

'The first presents a pattern whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning' - ✓ CORRECT - The first boldface shows the puzzling pattern (initial repairs fail, redos succeed) that drives the entire analysis
'the second provides evidence to rule out one possible explanation of that pattern' - ✓ CORRECT - The second boldface eliminates the explanation that different mechanics cause the pattern

The first presents a pattern whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the explanation presented by the consultant.

'The first presents a pattern whose explanation is at issue in the reasoning' - ✓ CORRECT - Same reasoning as choice C
'the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the explanation presented by the consultant' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface supports the consultant's reasoning by eliminating competing explanations, rather than challenging it

The first is the position the consultant seeks to establish; the second is offered as evidence for that position.

'The first is the position the consultant seeks to establish' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface is an accepted observation, not the position being argued for
'the second is offered as evidence for that position' - ✗ WRONG - Since the first part is wrong, this relationship is also incorrect

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...