#4 - Cassie: In order to improve the quality of customer

[Arindom]

Hi,

For this question, I chose ans choice B because if clients are also wanting reduced client loads, then there is more reason for Melvin to consider Cassie's argument, right? That is why I am having a hard time seeing why ans choice A is correct.

Thanks.

- Arindom

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Arindom,

Thanks for your question. This stimulus can be a bit confusing.

Let's keep in mind what each speaker is trying to achieve and what, specifically, we are asked. We are looking for the strongest counter that Cassie can make to Melvin. Cassie is trying to demonstrate that client loads need to be reduced; Melvin is countering that suggestion by saying that recruiting even more new agents than the company currently does is out of the question, because even recruiting enough to maintain current client loads is very difficult.

With answer choice A though, Cassie could rebut Melvin's objection; the problem he cites, that he thinks she has overlooked, is that recruiting is so difficult as to be a problem; if she were to counter with answer choice A, the problem he refers to would be at least partially solved, and her plan can move forward.

Answer choice B is weak in comparison to A because neither of our speakers has expressed direct concern for what the company's clients want; Cassie is trying to reduce client loads, and Melvin is arguing that doing so is impossible because of difficult recruitment. Whether or not the customers would be pleased by reduced client loads is not directly relevant.

I hope that helps.

[pasu1223]

Hello,

I narrowed down the answer choices to A and D for this problem, and ended up choosing answer choice D.

My reasoning for this was that current client loads cannot be reduced without hiring more staff, although hiring more staff would allow further staff to be hired more easily isn't the whole problem with hiring the staff in the first place?

Melvin states "recruiting more agents to reduce loads it out of the question." How then would they be able to hire staff if it is already out of the question? If they hire enough staff to resolve the issue isn't it not an issue anymore?

I guess because this is a third family question the answer choice is assumed to be true... I just feel like it completely contradicts the initial premises so it doesn't feel like the best come back. This is a weaken question, correct?

Any help to clarify my thinking on this dilemma would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

Patrick

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Patrick,

You're correct that this is a weaken question.

Our goal in answering this one is to undermine Melvin's argument that the agency cannot reduce client loads. So we're looking for something that will support Cassie's position that the agency should reduce client loads by hiring more agents.

The issue with answer choice (D) is that it doesn't actually further Cassie's argument. Cassie wants to reduce client loads by hiring more agents. Answer choice (D) suggests an alternate solution (hiring more support staff) which would cut back on some of the pressure agents are feeling. However it would't result in reduced client loads or additional agents, which is what Cassie wants.

In answer choice (A), we're considering a scenario where qualified agents would actually be interested in working at the agency because their workload is more humane. Melvin might be right that hiring more agents is not feasible, but perhaps this is because well-qualified agents don't want to work at an agency that assigns a crippling client load. If the agency reduced the demands it placed on each agent like Cassie suggested, perhaps more agents would see it as a desirable place to work and accept a job offer. Answer choice (A) helps Cassie counter Melvin's suggestion that hiring more agents "isn't feasible" while still furthering her main argument that the agency should decrease client loads by hiring more agents.

I hope that clarifies things. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton