When dealing with boldfaced questions, start by COMPLETELY IGNORING the boldface and finding the conclusion: "Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program." Now, let's make sure we understand the author's logic, and THEN we can see how the boldfaced portions fit in with that logic:
- Hatchnut is a large corporation in a small country and wants its managers to have international experience.
- In order to give its managers international experience, Hatchnut sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees each year.
- In addition to giving its managers international experience, Hatchnut also uses trainee performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions. So the program has two purposes: to provide international experience and to differentiate candidates for management positions.
- The author explains a problem with the current program: many of the management trainees who graduate from the program leave Hatchnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program.
- According to the author, both of the desired purposes could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the current attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hatchnut should discontinue the sponsorship program. In other words, if there are other ways to accomplish the goals of the program and the current program has a problem that cannot be addressed, Hatchnut should discontinue the current program.
Now let's see which option best describes the roles of the boldfaced portions:
Quote:
A. The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to justify; the second states a judgment that is used in support of a justification for that practice.
The first BF portion does describe a company practice, but the argument seeks to EVALUATE this practice, not to JUSTIFY it. Furthermore, rather than justifying the practice, the second BF portion suggests that the practice is not needed. (A) can be eliminated.
Quote:
B. The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.
The argument seeks to EVALUATE the practice rather than EXPLAIN it. Furthermore, the second BF portion does not serve to explain the practice, so (B) can be eliminated.
Quote:
C. The first introduces a practice that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the practice cannot achieve its objective.
The first BF portion does introduce a company practice that the argument seeks to evaluate, but the second simply states that there are other ways to achieve the goals of that practice. The second does not necessarily imply that the current practice cannot achieve its objective, so (C) is off the mark.
Quote:
D. The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.
The first BF portion does introduce a company policy that the argument seeks to evaluate, and the second states that there are other ways to achieve the goals of that policy. If there are other ways to achieve the goals of that policy, then one could argue that the policy is not needed. Choice (D) looks good.
Quote:
E. The first introduces a consideration supporting a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides evidence for concluding that the policy should be abandoned.
The first BF portion is the policy itself, not a consideration supporting the policy. The second is evidence for concluding that the policy COULD be abandoned (because there are other ways to achieve the policy's goals), but it is not necessarily evidence for concluding that the policy SHOULD be abandoned. Eliminate (E).
Choice (D) is the best answer.
15 Feb 2023, 10:30
78% (01:52) correct
