- Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:02 am
#22878
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.
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.