All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  As a large corporation in a small country, Ha... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
  • 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.
  • b)
    The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.
  • 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.
  • d)
    The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.
  • 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.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers ...
Understanding the Argument Structure
In the argument presented, Hachnut sponsors management education abroad but faces high attrition rates among graduates. The analysis of the boldfaced portions reveals their roles in the overall argument.
First Boldfaced Portion: A Policy Under Evaluation
- This portion outlines Hachnut's sponsorship program for international management education.
- The argument evaluates this policy by questioning its effectiveness due to the high attrition rate of graduates who leave for competing firms.
Second Boldfaced Portion: Grounds for Policy Reassessment
- The second portion states that the goals of the program, such as providing international experience and using performance as a criterion for management positions, could be achieved through alternative means.
- This suggests that the current policy may not be necessary or effective in fulfilling its intended objectives.
Conclusion: Justifying the Evaluation
- By introducing the policy and subsequently providing grounds for its reconsideration, the argument implies that the sponsorship program is not needed if it cannot effectively retain talent.
- Thus, if the attrition issue persists, discontinuation of the program becomes a valid conclusion.
In summary, the roles of the boldfaced portions align with option 'D', where the first introduces the policy being evaluated, and the second offers reasons to question the necessity of that policy.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Inferring from the passage, which of the following constituted an ethical justification for SWIFT complying with the government?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.The author most likely used the word "ostensibly" near the end of the first paragraph to emphasize that

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.The author implies that which of the following most likely occurred as a result of the news stories that ran in June 2006

American companies may find the solution to their performance related problems in their own backyard. A recently conducted independent study shows that in the business world, social and political skills have become the real key to getting ahead in organisations, skills that successful managers use to their advantage. The study found out that successful managers, those who get promoted relatively quickly vis--vis effective managers, perform day to day activities that are more or less dissimilar to the ones conducted by effective managers or those who have satisfied, committed subordinates, in addition to high performing units. Accordingly, it comes as no surprise that networking, which consists of socializing or politicking and interacting with others, was one activity that, out of the core four activities among the plethora of activities performed by managers, topped the list for successful managers but was ranked the lowest in the list of activities performed by the effective ones. Indeed the findings of the study do not negate the reality that there are managers who strike a balance between the activities performed by both types of managers and hence are successful and effective at the same time, but the meagre percentage such managers formed of the studys sample, barely ten percent, affirms the general divide between successful and effective managers.These findings clearly belie the traditional assumption typically suggested by formal personnel policies that promotions are based purely on performance. In effect, the studys implications affirm the cynical, yet what now seems real, view that people who are not necessarily the most accomplishing in terms of performing well in the other three key activity areas, namely communication, traditional management, and human resource management, are being promoted to the top level. Therefore, American companies looking to improve their performance and productivity need to ensure that formal rewards, especially promotions, are tied to performance. This way companies will be promoting a work-culture that turns effective managers in to successful managers and gives the currently successful managers a chance to effectively focus on productivity and not just on socializing and politicking.Each of the following can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice As a large corporation in a small country, Hachnut wants its managers to have international experience, so each year it sponsors management education abroad for its management trainees. Hachnut has found, however, that the attrition rate of graduates from this program is very high, with many of them leaving Hachnut to join competing firms soon after completing the program. Hachnut does use performance during the program as a criterion in deciding among candidates for management positions, but both this function and the goal of providing international experience could be achieved in other ways. Therefore, if the attrition problem cannot be successfully addressed, Hachnut should discontinue the sponsorship program.In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?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.b)The first describes a practice that the argument seeks to explain; the second presents part of the argument’s explanation of that practice.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.d)The first introduces a policy that the argument seeks to evaluate; the second provides grounds for holding that the policy is not needed.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.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup