PT12.S1.Q22 - At the end of the year, Wilson’s Department Store

Comments

• drbrown2 Alum Member

  May 2019 2227 karma

  I think the gap between the support and the conclusion (that the number of salespeople passed over for the award has similarly declined) is that there is nothing to say that the number of people who earned and did not earn the award is the same as it was 15 years ago. Maybe the department store used to employ 100 salespeople and now it employs 1000. We don't know that the present award criteria is the same today as it was 15 years ago. There are things we still need to figure out to verify that the number of people passed over has similarly declined!

  C fixes this by saying that the 33% criteria is the same today as it was 15 years ago. Therefore, if the number of awards being given out is smaller, the group must be smaller. 33% of 1000 salespeople 15 years ago would be 333 salespeople getting awards. Now the number of awards has gone down, but the % of the group is still the same.
• hosny.yhm Free Trial Member

  June 2019 26 karma

  @drbrown2

  Thanks, for the explanation.

  This might be a silly question. My main issue is I don't understand what the argument is saying.

  How can people receiving awards be declining and people passed over for awards be declining, both at the same time?

  If people receiving awards declined, wouldn’t that mean fewer people are getting awards than before?

  And, if the number of salespeople passed over for awards has declined, wouldn’t that mean more people are getting awards, than before?

  So confused. I don’t understand the reasoning in the argument.

  Also, I understand that one criterion of receiving the award is being in the top third of the sales force. But, this doesn't help me understand the argument... or should it?
• hosny.yhm Free Trial Member

  June 2019 edited June 2019 26 karma

  I think finally understood. My brain was locked, and wouldn't understand lol.

  I'm assuming the number of the sales force has decreased in the span of 15 years to the present.

  If before (sometime in the last 15 years), the sales force total was 100, the top 1/3 awarded would be 33, and the bottom half not rewarded would be 67.

  At present, if the sales force total is 60, the top 1/3 awarded would be 20, and the bottom half not rewarded would be 40.

  So at present, people receiving awards declined (because there are fewer people that make up the sales force than before), and the number of salespeople passed over for awards has declined (again, because there are fewer people that make up the sales force than before). The fewer sales force members, the fewer people passed over for award.

  Couldn't one of the sufficient right answers be: "the number of salespeople at Wilson's has DECREASED over the past fifteen years"?
• JuandaSheep Alum Member

  August 2019 edited August 2019 42 karma

  Hi @"hosny.yhm" ,

  I don't think so. The biggest gap of the newly appointed president's argument is that he/she only mentions the award criterion "at present." We have no information on whether that has changed in the past 15 years.

  Why is it relevant? Here's a scenario where the number of people passed over the award remains unchanged, whereas the number of salespeople at Wilson's has decreased over the past 15 years:

  15 years ago:
  - Number of salespeople: 1000
  - Award criterion: top 60%
  - Salespeople awarded: 600
  - Salespeople passed over for awards: 400

  at present:
  - Number of salespeople: 600 (decreased)
  - Award criterion: top third
  - Salespeople awarded: 200
  - Salespeople passed over for awards: 400

  In this scenario, the number of salespeople has decreased (the SA you suggested), but the number of salespeople passed over for awards remain the same. So this condition doesn't guarantee the president's conclusion.

  (C), however, addresses this gap between criterion at present and criterion before, which is why it is a sufficient assumption.

  Hope this helps!
• Clemens_ Live Member

  May 2023 edited May 2023 299 karma

  This SA question is unusual in that it features a hypothetical dialogue that contains many gaps and two conclusions that remain implicit. The topic of the dialogue is free merchandise that Wilson's Department Store awards to its top salespeople.

  The positions from the stimulus are as follows:

  Other people: “[T]he number of salespeople receiving these awards has declined markedly over the past fifteen years.”

  Department Store President: “[S]ince our award criterion at present is membership in the top third of our sales force, we can also say that the number of salespeople passed over for these awards has similarly declined."

  In paraphrased form, the interlocutors seem to be trying to argue:

  Other people: “Over the past 15 years, the number of salespeople who received awards has been shrinking. This suggests that there is something wrong or unfair with the ways in which these awards have been awarded.”

  President: “It is not the case that there is something wrong or unfair with the ways in which Wilson's awards have been awarded. Instead, the decrease in salespeople who received awards can be explained in terms of the numerical development of Wilson’s sales force as a whole. In particular, the total number of salespeople that Wilson’s employs has shrunk. Since Wilson’s furthermore has consistently assigned awards to the top 33% of its sales force, this decrease in the total size of the sales force has also lead to a decrease in the number of sales people that make up these 33%.”

  There thus seem to be at least two gaps or additional claims that need to be made explicit: (1) The president is appealing to a reduction in the total number of people that makes up Wilson’s sales force. (2) The president furthermore appeals to a presumed consistency and fairness in the ways awards are being assigned, relative to the size of the sales force. In particular, the president seems to be trying to argue: Over the course of the last 15 years, Wilson’s ALWAYS assigned awards only to the top 33% of all sales people. If the overall decrease of Wilson’s sales force thus also makes the number of salespeople that correspond to this percentage shrink, there is accordingly nothing unfair to Wilson’s awarding policies. To make this claim, however, the top 33% policy has to be applied to the entirety of the last 15 years. Based on the stimulus, we only know that this policy is taken to hold ‘at present.’ Answer choice (C) gets at this extension in scope and thus provides the SA we are looking for.

  Takeaways: This SA question is unusually tricky because it leaves so much unsaid. Treat the stimulus as a sort of Point at Issue / Disagreement question where the conclusions of both parties are not explicitly stated. Figure out what the phenomenon is that the parties are trying to explain (decrease in number of salespeople who receive awards), and identify the corresponding explanations that the parties provide (unfair award policies vs. numerical decrease in total sales force). Pay attention to temporal markers such as ‘at present:’ Which time spans or domains are the interlocutors considering, and which time spans or domains would they have to consider to present their positions in ways that are valid?