#8 - Early in the development of a new product line, the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus, the author first establishes the premise that new product lines require talented managers. Then the author establishes the premise that talented managers are usually assigned to established high-revenue product lines, so new product lines fail. The author concludes that the best managers should be assigned to new products.

There are several potential holes in this argument. What happens when the best managers are re-allocated away from existing products: will the existing (high-revenue) products still survive? Also, how many new product lines end up being big profit generators? If the probability of any new product line becoming a big profit generator is low, why waste resources trying to develop that product?

The question stem asks for an answer choice that will strengthen the author's argument, by filling in a gap in the argument.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice actually weakens the argument, by showing that talented managers are actually not more effective with new product lines.

Answer choice (B): The share of total expenditures taken up by new product lines seems irrelevant to the question of what kind of managers are needed for these new product lines.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice weakens the argument, by showing that a talented manager is not likely to be passionate about a new product line, even if she is assigned to that project.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This statement plugs a major hole in the argument by removing the concern that the existing high-revenue product lines might suffer without talented managers.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice shows us how we could separate the good prospects from the bad prospects, but it does not tell us what kind of managers we should assign to the good prospects.

[lunalondon]

Hello PS,

I was wondering if B could be classified as a weaken.

If for most established companies the development of new product lines is a relatively small part of the company's expenditure, then it would not really matter who is assigned to that project. Little money is going to be spent regardless of whether the person leading the project is one of the best managers (who presumably are more expensive then say "average" or "poor" managers , so this answer choice would actually weaken the argument by showing that you do not need the best manager.

Do you think this is a good way of looking at B?

Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, LunaLondon,

Good analysis. However, even hypothetically, I don't believe Answer Choice (B) actually accomplishes much with respect to the validity of the conclusion either way. Here's why: note how you extrapolated from the situation in Answer Choice (B). It was necessary for you to add some conjecture to the situation, that is, you assume that small expenditures would make new ventures less important. In fact, it could be argued that even though such projects require only a small initial outlay, they will prove to be of critical importance in a more long-term analysis; i.e. if these new marketing ventures fail, they may not only represent the loss of a small upfront expense but also lost long term revenue prospects.

I applaud your diligence and willingness to engage with all the answer choices to further your understanding of these arguments!

[zoia]

Hi PS,

I chose E because I thought that the correct answer had to deal with making the new line work by placing the best managers on those projects. Why would D be correct when it doesn't refer to the new product line?

Thanks!

Best,
Zoia

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Zoia!

To your question,

Why would D be correct when it doesn't refer to the new product line?

It's not clear that it's necessary for the right answer choice to mention the new product line explicitly. Rather, the conclusion of the stimulus is "Contrary to current practice, the best managers in a company should be assigned to development projects." A key word often indicating a conclusion is "should"--i.e., using premises of what is the case, to arrive at a conclusion of what should be the case.

The reason (D) strengthens the above conclusion is because it focuses on what is happening simultaneously with putting the best managers into development projects. If (D) were true--if it were the case that "The current revenue and profitability of an established product line can be maintained even if the company’s best managers are assigned elsewhere"--this strengthens the argument of what should be done. It gives a reason why companies should allocate their best managers to development projects--because this would greatly benefit those "new product lines," and because established projects would not suffer if the company reallocated its managers as recommended. In this way (D) does not mention the new product line explicitly but still does so implicitly and indirectly.

Hope that helps!

[puppytiff]

Hi Zoia!

To your question,

Why would D be correct when it doesn't refer to the new product line?

It's not clear that it's necessary for the right answer choice to mention the new product line explicitly. Rather, the conclusion of the stimulus is "Contrary to current practice, the best managers in a company should be assigned to development projects." A key word often indicating a conclusion is "should"--i.e., using premises of what is the case, to arrive at a conclusion of what should be the case.

The reason (D) strengthens the above conclusion is because it focuses on what is happening simultaneously with putting the best managers into development projects. If (D) were true--if it were the case that "The current revenue and profitability of an established product line can be maintained even if the company’s best managers are assigned elsewhere"--this strengthens the argument of what should be done. It gives a reason why companies should allocate their best managers to development projects--because this would greatly benefit those "new product lines," and because established projects would not suffer if the company reallocated its managers as recommended. In this way (D) does not mention the new product line explicitly but still does so implicitly and indirectly.

Hope that helps!

I chose E as answer, because I think if the new product line is a good predictor of the future of the business, it's reasonable to infer that the best staffs should be allocate to the new product line. Also if we link the answer choice with the conclusion, "If early short term revenue prospects of a new product line are usually a good predictor of how successful a product line will ultimately be, the best mangers in a company should be assigned to development projects".

Now I feel both E and D are right

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Puppytiff,

Focus on what the speaker is arguing for and being critical of any gaps or flaws exist in the reasoning. This stimulus concludes that the best managers should be reassigned to the development projects from "high-revenue product lines." Is there any reason given for why we should take resources from the "high-revenue" departments?

We were told that it is necessary for the new product lines to have good managers, but you should still ask yourself why we would ever take our best people away from the "high-revenue" areas if we want to make money. It seems like a decent idea to me to put the most talented people on the most profitable products. The speaker's only argument was that if we continue to do this, the new product lines will continue to fail for the most part. But why would we want to risk upsetting our high revenue lines for the chance of a new product?

Answer choice (E) tells us that early revenue prospects of new lines are a good predictor of the ultimate success of these products. However it does not tell us how often these products will turn out to be successful. For all we know, the company's fortunes could rest on a few high-revenue products that they have sold for years. We may end up sending the managers to the new product lines only to have the old product lines falter. This answer choice only strengthens the conclusion if you already assume that it would be a good idea to develop new products.

Answer choice (D) is the only statement that gives us a reason for reassigning the best managers to the new lines. It tells us that there will be no risk to our most profitable products if we do so.

[martinbeslu]

The part that I don't understand about answer choice D is that it says the CURRENT revenue and profitability can be MAINTAINED. However, this isn't the job of a talented manager. If the most talented managers of a company never grew revenues or profitability they would be fired. Isn't this a bad thing? At most it seems like this fact would have no effect.

I know that we aren't supposed to use outside knowledge to answer the questions but so many of the strengthen questions require us to make common sense assumptions about things that aren't explicitly stated. I haven't been able to figure out the line between common sense assumptions that we are supposed to be making and more specific assumptions that lead to wrong answers.

[James Finch]

Hi Martin,

It sounds like you may be making an assumption that isn't warranted by the information in the stimulus: that there is a reserve pool of talented managers who are free to be assigned to either the established products or the new developments, and that these more talented managers would be more successful in either position than the current managers.

I read the stimulus differently: the talented managers are already assigned to the established, successful product lines, so if they were reassigned to developmental projects, the established lines would suffer under the leadership of less talented managers, while the new products would do better under the talented managers. Basically, it becomes a zero-sum game, and the conclusion cannot be supported, as we don't know the degree to which managerial talent matters to the success of the established or new product lines.

Answer choice (D) changes the equation from a zero-sum game to a win-win, net positive, by saying that established lines can be just as successful under less talented managers, but new product lines would be more successful under more talented managers. In other words, the talent level of the manager would be irrelevant for the established lines, but very important for the new lines, which effectively justifies the conclusion that the most talented managers should always be in charge of new lines.

Hope this clears things up!

[martinbeslu]

My assumption was that a talented manager would grow the revenue and profitability, not just maintain it.

Similarly, if the stock price of a company stayed at $50/share for a decade everyone would sell the stock. And that is exactly what would happen if the revenue and profitability never increased. The share price must go up over time (or at least be expected to go up over time) in order for the company to stay in existence.

Answer choice D has no more affect on the argument than saying that the company won’t go bankrupt if the company’s best managers are assigned elsewhere. That’s great… but it doesn’t tell us that the less talented managers won’t do a much worse job with the established high-revenue product lines than the talented managers.