Self-paced
Mr. ██████ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ████ ████ ███████
███ ██████ █████████ ██████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███████████████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████
Objective: (Relatively) Strengthen Ms. Fring's Position
The question stem asks us to help favor Ms. Fring's position over Mr. Blatt's. In other words, we want to strengthen Ms. Fring's argument, relative to Mr. Blatt's argument. We can achieve that either by directly strengthening Ms. Fring's argument, or by weakening Mr. Blatt's argument so Ms. Fring's argument is stronger by comparison.
Ms. Fring concludes that executives hire consultants to avoid responsibility. In support, she explains that the more expensive consultants are, the more blame can be shifted to them. In contrast, Mr. Blatt argues that expert consultants' work provides good value for money, because they help executives make better decisions.
To strengthen Ms. Fring's argument relative to Mr. Blatt's argument, the correct answer should support the idea that consultants are hired to avoid responsibility, or should weaken the idea that consultants' work provides good value. Incorrect answer choices might weaken Ms. Fring's argument, strengthen Mr. Blatt's argument, or do nothing at all.
23.
Which one of the following, ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████
a
A company that ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ █████████████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ █ ████████████ █████████
(A) gives us a situation where a consultant is hired, but doesn't reveal the executives' reasoning or the results of the consultant's work. That doesn't strengthen or weaken either argument: it's equally possible the consultant was hired to avoid blame, or to actually help.
b
Two competing companies █████ ████ ████ ███████ ████████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██ █ ███████████ ███ ████████
Like (A), (B) doesn't tell us the reasoning or the results of hiring or not hiring consultants. That means it doesn't affect either argument—any reasoning is possible for these decisions.
c
A successful firm ██ ██████ ███████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████
Here's an outcome that strengthens Ms. Fring's argument, and weakens Mr. Blatt's argument. If expensive consultants are hired to shift blame, then it makes sense that less-expensive consultants would lose business. On the other hand, if consultants really helped make good decisions, you would expect even more clients when the consultants lowered their prices.
d
An expert consultant ██████ ██ █ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████ █ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ████████
(D) strengthens Mr. Blatt's argument by tying consultants' pay to their results. To strengthen Ms. Fring's argument, we actually want consultants to be paid more when the results are worse: that's when blame-shifting is most needed. Instead, (D) aligns with Mr. Blatt's claim that consultants are actually effective; they're even willing to stake their pay on it.
e
A company follows █ ██████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ██████
(E) is slightly better than (A) and (B) because it tells us the (initial) result of a consultant-assisted decision. However, (E) still doesn't explain the reasoning behind hiring consultants, so it's compatible with either argument.