PT1.S4.Q23 - Mr. Blatt: Expert consultants are sought after

odel.justinodel.justin Member
edited January 2019 in Logical Reasoning 28 karma

What I wrote down for BR: I do not see an answer choice that really strengthens Ms. Fring's argument. However, if a company follows an experts advice and the result was very little profit(ac E) I believe that would be a substantial example allowing us to reject Mr. Blatt's argument.
I know that this is a strengthening question and we should be looking for something that strengthens the argument and not weakens Mr. Blatts argument, but I do not see how ac C is correct. What does volume of business have to do with blame? The stimulus just says the more they cost the more they can be blamed not the more or less they cost the more or less business they have.

help

Admin note: edited title

Comments

  • FixedDiceFixedDice Member
    1804 karma

    (C) strengthens Ms. Fring's argument by indicating that there may be a correlation between costs and avoiding responsibility after all. Ms. Fring claims that executives hire expert consultants because the more expansive they are, the more they can be blamed.

    (C) gives a scenario where a group of expert consultants reduce their charges in order to increase business, and see their strategy backfire. Per Ms. Fring's argument, this would mean that these guys became less attractive in executives' eyes because they are less expansive. So (C) provides evidence that her argument may be true after all.

  • odel.justinodel.justin Member
    28 karma

    Light Bulb! Thank you.

  • Grace...Grace... Alum Member
    344 karma

    @FixedDice: Good explanation. BTW, you probably meant to write "expensive."

  • SeptLSATSeptLSAT Member
    edited November 2019 42 karma

    Stimulus
    Blatt's argument: executives hire expert consultants because consults can help make better decisions.

    Fring's argument: executives hire consultants because the more they cost, the more executives can avoid responsibility

    Task: Strengthen Fring's argument by weakening Blatt's argument, show hiring for reasons other than decisions, or show how consultants hired to avoid responsibility.

    A) Wrong b/c a company deciding where to move their manufacturing plant based on an expensive consultant's cost/benefit analysis provides a situation when a company hire consultants and paid high fees because they wanted a better decision. Supports Blatt.
    *Assumptions: expensive ~ pay high fees; better decision ~ cost/benefit analysis

    B ) Wrong b/c not enough information is provided whether the company hired the consultant because it wanted a better decision or to avoid responsibility. Supports neither Blatt nor Fring.

    C) Correct b/c because highlights relationship between hiring a consultant and fees rather than hiring a consultant firm for better decisions. When fees were lowered, the volume of business dropped. Why? Potentially because the the less the consultants cost, the less companies could avoid responsibility. Provides some support for Fingr's argument.

    D) Wrong b/c supports Blatt's argument showing businesses hired the consultant because the consultant helped saved money.

    E) Wrong b/c company hires a consultant because they wanted to make a better decision ("whether to open to new stores"). Although both stores are only marginally profitable "at first", not enough to discount it being a better decision. Support Blatt.
    Assumptions: whether to open new store ~ better decision.

Sign In or Register to comment.