Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furniture retailer, because most of Flyna's furniture is manufactured in...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furniture retailer, because most of Flyna's furniture is manufactured in Country X from local wood, and illegal logging is widespread there. However, Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills. It has hired a staff of auditors and forestry professionals who review documentation of the wood supply of Country X's lumber mills to ensure its legal origin, make surprise visits to mills to verify documents, and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber. Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills. Thus, Flyna's claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.

Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the justification provided for Flyna's claim?

Only about one-third of Flyna's inspectors were hired from outside the company.

Country X's government recently reduced its subsidies for lumber production.

Flyna has had to pay higher than expected salaries to attract qualified inspectors.

The proportion of Country X's lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna's staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.

Illegal logging costs Country X's government a significant amount in lost revenue each year.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Stockholders have been critical of the Flyna Company, a major furniture retailer, because most of Flyna's furniture is manufactured in Country X from local wood, and illegal logging is widespread there.	What it says: Stockholders are upset with Flyna because they make furniture in Country X where illegal logging happens a lot What it does: Sets up the problem that Flyna is facing from its stakeholders What it is: Background context establishing the controversy
However, Flyna has set up a certification scheme for lumber mills.	What it says: Flyna created a system to certify lumber mills What it does: Introduces Flyna's response to the criticism mentioned earlier What it is: Author's description of company action
It has hired a staff of auditors and forestry professionals who review documentation of the wood supply of Country X's lumber mills to ensure its legal origin, make surprise visits to mills to verify documents, and certify mills as approved sources of legally obtained lumber.	What it says: Flyna hired experts who check paperwork, do surprise inspections, and approve mills that follow the law What it does: Explains the detailed steps of how Flyna's certification system actually works What it is: Author's explanation of company procedures Visualization: Flyna's Process: Documentation Review → Surprise Visits → Certification (Only Legal Mills Get Approved)
Flyna uses only lumber from certified mills.	What it says: Flyna only buys wood from the mills they've approved through their certification process What it does: Shows how Flyna applies their certification system to their purchasing decisions What it is: Author's statement of company policy
Thus, Flyna's claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.	What it says: Therefore, Flyna is right when they say their wood is legal What it does: Draws a conclusion that Flyna's certification process proves their wood is legal What it is: Author's conclusion based on the evidence presented

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by presenting a problem (stockholder criticism about illegal logging), then describes Flyna's solution (certification scheme with detailed procedures), and finally concludes that this solution justifies Flyna's claims about legal wood sourcing.

Main Conclusion:

Flyna's claim that its Country X wood supply is obtained legally is justified.

Logical Structure:

The argument assumes that Flyna's certification process (hiring auditors, reviewing documentation, making surprise visits, and only using certified mills) is sufficient evidence to prove that their wood supply is actually legal. The conclusion directly follows from the premise that their systematic approach eliminates illegal wood from their supply chain.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that Flyna's claim about legal wood supply is justified

Precision of Claims

The conclusion makes a definitive claim about justification - that Flyna's certification process with auditors, documentation review, surprise visits, and mill certification is sufficient to ensure all their Country X wood is legally obtained

Strategy

For this weaken question, we need to find gaps in Flyna's certification system that would allow illegal wood to still enter their supply chain despite their procedures. We should look for ways the system could fail or be circumvented while accepting that Flyna does have auditors, does do surprise visits, and does only buy from certified mills

Answer Choices Explained

Only about one-third of Flyna's inspectors were hired from outside the company.

This doesn't weaken the justification because it doesn't matter where the inspectors came from originally. What matters is whether they're qualified to do their job properly. The argument tells us Flyna hired 'auditors and forestry professionals,' so as long as they have the right expertise, their employment history is irrelevant to whether the certification system works.

Country X's government recently reduced its subsidies for lumber production.

This information about government subsidies has no bearing on whether Flyna's certification system can identify legal versus illegal wood sources. Subsidy changes might affect lumber prices or production volumes, but they don't impact Flyna's ability to verify the legal origin of wood through documentation review and surprise visits.

Flyna has had to pay higher than expected salaries to attract qualified inspectors.

This actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If Flyna is paying premium salaries, this suggests they're attracting highly qualified professionals to run their certification system. Higher-quality inspectors would make their certification process more reliable, not less reliable.

The proportion of Country X's lumber mills inspected each year by Flyna's staff is about 10 percent, randomly selected.

This severely undermines the justification because it reveals that 90% of lumber mills operate without any inspection from Flyna's auditors. Even if Flyna only buys from 'certified' mills, those certified mills could be receiving wood from the 90% of uninspected mills where illegal logging could be occurring. This creates a massive loophole that allows illegal wood to enter Flyna's supply chain despite their certification system.

Illegal logging costs Country X's government a significant amount in lost revenue each year.

This is background information about the scale of the illegal logging problem but doesn't directly impact whether Flyna's specific certification system is effective. The argument already acknowledges that illegal logging is widespread in Country X, so this just reinforces what we already know without challenging Flyna's solution.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...