#23 - Mr. Blatt: Expert consultants are sought after by

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (C)

Mr. Blatt and Ms. Fring are committed to disagreeing over the reasons why management hires expert consultants and pays their exorbitant fees. Mr. Blatt believes they are worth the fees they charge because they help executives make better decisions. Ms. Fring is not as naïve: according to her, the reason why expert consultants are hired is to help executives avoid responsibility:

• Cause Effect
  
  Mr. Blatt: help make better decisions pay high fees to consultants
  
  Ms. Fring: help avoid responsibility pay high fees to consultants

Since our goal is to strengthen Ms. Fring’s position, we should look for an answer that either directly strengthens the causal relationship in her argument, or one that weakens Mr. Blatt’s.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice strengthens Mr. Blatt’s position by giving an example of a company hiring expensive experts in an attempt to make a better business decision. We are given no information as to whether the experts’ advice was actually worth the money. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): The fact that two competing companies faced with similar problems adopt different solutions provides no evidence in favor of either position, since it is unclear whether either company hired experts to help them adopt these solutions. Furthermore, even if experts had been hired, there is no reason to suspect that consultants hired to help a company make better decisions will always offer the same solution to resolve similar problems. A problem can have more than one solution. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If reducing consultants’ fees has an effect contrary to the one anticipated (it led to a drop in business volume instead of an increase), then the substantial fees must have been the primary reason why consultants were hired in the first place.

Answer choice (D): How the fees charged by expert consultants are assessed has no effect on either argument. This answer choice only strengthens the proposition that consultants cost a lot of money, without suggesting a reason why executives are willing to pay them. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This may seem like an attractive answer choice, since the consultants did not necessarily help the company make a better decision by opening the new stores, thus weakening Mr. Blatt’s argument. However, just because the stores were only marginally profitable at first does not mean that they will never make a substantial profit. Profit need not be realized immediately for a business decision to be sound. Furthermore, we have no indication as to whether the experts hired by the company cost a lot of money; maybe the company hired inexpensive experts to the detriment of its profitability.

[lathlee]

Hi. I read multiple time but i do not understand How answer c strengths the causal relationship of Ms.Fring's argument.

[Adam Tyson]

Ms. Fring's argument is that expert consultants are hired to enable executives to avoid responsibility, and

The more the experts cost, the more they can be blamed when things go wrong.

In other words, higher cost does more to accomplish what the executives want. If the same expert consultants get less business when they lower their fees, it strengthens Fring's claim that higher costs for those experts make them more valuable to the executives looking to avoid responsibility. C is an example of where a cause is removed (high cost) an effect is reduced (they no longer get hired as much).

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

I narrowed down my choices to (d) and (c). I ultimately eliminated answer choice (c) because it described a successful firm of expert consultants wanting to increase its own business while both Mr. Blatt and Ms. Fring discuss expert consultants helping/advising executives.

Mr. Blatt states that they are worth the substantial fees they charge because they help executives make decisions. Ms. Fring contends that consultants are hired to avoid responsibility and the more they cost, the more they can be used as a scape goat. Based off this, how isn't C beyond the scope of the argument?

[Brook Miscoski]

Adriana,

Fring's argument, which you are asked to support, is that executives hire consultants because the prices are high. (C) supports that by stating that when consultants drop their prices, they are no longer hired.

[mpowell2]

I understand that C is correct (I answered incorrectly, E). My issue with this question is the ambiguous nature of the word "its". The consulting firm is trying to increase 'its' volume of business (the clients' business, presumably) or the consulting firm is trying to 'its' volume of business (i.e. the consulting firm's volume of clients). Maybe I am thinking too hard.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi mpowell2!

Answer choice (C) states, "A successful firm of expert consultants seeks to increase its volume of business by reducing its fees, but its volume of business drops." In this context, "its" is referring to the mentioned firm of expert consultants.

The question stem asks us for an answer choice that strengthens Ms. Fring's position. Ms. Fring argues that business executives want consultants so that the execs can avoid responsibility, and the "more the experts cost, the more they can blamed when things go wrong." So Ms. Fring is arguing that consultant fees and their desirability to execs are directly proportional--the higher they charge, the more desirable they are to execs.

Answer choice (C) strengthens this relationship. The mentioned consulting firm wants to increase its volume of business and lowers its fees to do so. However, lowering fees instead has the consequence of its volume of business dropping. This strengthens the argument advanced by Ms. Fring that higher fees will garner consultants more business, because higher fees will make them more desirable to execs.