Loading...
Consultant: Several recent articles have discussed nonverbal communication as an element of persuasion. Apparently, body language and eye contact are even more influential than words in persuading someone to adopt a certain point of view. Thus, my recommendation is that you hire someone to train your sales team in using nonverbal communication skills. This will ensure their being able to persuade more customers to purchase our products.
Which of the following, if true, most clearly points to a flaw in the consultant's recommendation for increasing sales?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Several recent articles have discussed nonverbal communication as an element of persuasion. |
|
| Apparently, body language and eye contact are even more influential than words in persuading someone to adopt a certain point of view. |
|
| Thus, my recommendation is that you hire someone to train your sales team in using nonverbal communication skills. |
|
| This will ensure their being able to persuade more customers to purchase our products. |
|
The consultant starts with research evidence about nonverbal communication being powerful for persuasion, then recommends training the sales team in these skills, and concludes this will guarantee better sales results.
Training the sales team in nonverbal communication skills will ensure they can persuade more customers to buy products.
The argument links research about general persuasion effectiveness to a specific business training solution, assuming that what works for persuasion in general will automatically work for sales situations.
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the consultant's conclusion that training the sales team in nonverbal communication will ensure they can persuade more customers to purchase products.
The consultant makes a very strong claim using 'ensure' - meaning the training will guarantee better sales results. The argument assumes that general persuasion research directly applies to sales situations and that training will effectively transfer these skills.
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that show why the training might not lead to increased sales. We can attack the connection between nonverbal communication research and actual sales situations, question whether the training will be effective, or show that other factors might matter more in sales contexts.
This suggests that excessive use of nonverbal communication could lead to stagnant sales. However, this doesn't point to a clear flaw in the recommendation itself - it's more about potential overuse rather than questioning whether the training would be applicable or effective in the company's actual sales context.
This actually supports the consultant's recommendation by suggesting the training cost would be offset by increased revenue. This strengthens rather than weakens the argument, so it doesn't point to any flaw.
The fact that the company's products aren't objectively better than competitors' doesn't point to a flaw in the nonverbal communication training recommendation. If anything, this might make persuasive skills even more important when products are similar in quality.
This suggests the sales team's current nonverbal skills aren't optimal, which actually supports the need for training rather than pointing to a flaw in the recommendation. This strengthens the consultant's argument.
This is the correct answer because it reveals a fundamental flaw in the consultant's logic. Nonverbal communication relies heavily on body language and eye contact, which require face-to-face interaction. If the sales force doesn't make most of its sales calls in person, then training them in nonverbal communication skills would be largely irrelevant to their actual sales activities. This creates a critical disconnect between the proposed solution and the reality of how the company conducts business.