A significant number of Unitron Corporation’s department hea

[JbhB682]

Source : GMAT prep

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

A significant number of Unitron Corporation’s department heads are due to retire this year. The number of employees other than current department heads who could take on the position of department head is equal to only about half of the expected vacancies. Unitron is not going to hire department heads from outside the company or have current department heads take over more than one department, so some departments will be without department heads next year since Unitron will not ______.

(A) raise the minimum qualifications an employee must have to be promoted to department head
(B) promote any current department heads to higher managerial positions
(C) reduce the responsibilities of each department
(D) have any manager who are currently senior to the department heads appointed as department heads
(E) reduces the average number of employees per

OA : D

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - I am not sure why A and B are wrong

I agree that D strengthens the point THAT the vacancies will go unfilled

But I think even option A and Option B "Strengthen" the point THAT vacancies will go unfilled

Any assistance would be great !

[TiffanyB]

Hello JbhB682,

When solving Critical Reasoning problems, it helps to clearly state your goal and remind yourself of it as you eliminate answer choices.

In this case, the argument outlines several struggles with filling the department head roles that will be vacated.

The goal is to fill in the blank that helps to further explain why some departments will be without department heads next year. This must be related to something that Unitron will not do.

When eliminating answer choices, ask yourself if it will explain why some departments will be without heads.

(A) [Unitron will not] raise the minimum qualifications an employee must have to be promoted to department head --> If Unitron did raise minimum qualifications, that would make it harder for them to fill department head roles. If minimum qualifications are not increasing, this doesn't explain why some departments will be without department heads. The situation is the same as described in the argument; nothing is explained further.

(B) [Unitron will not] promote any current department heads to higher managerial positions --> If Unitron did promote some current department heads, that would open even more positions to fill. Since they are not promoting any department heads, this doesn't further explain
why some department sill be without department heads. The situation is the same as described in the argument; nothing is explained further.

(C) [Unitron will not] reduce the responsibilities of each department. --> The responsibilities each department has is not related to whether they have a department head.

(D) [Unitron will not] have any managers who are currently senior to the department heads appointed as department heads --> If Unitron DID appoint managers who were senior to department heads, this is one way that the departments could all have heads, as the rest of the argument doesn't address this possibility. However, since Unitron is saying that this will not happen, we're ruling out another way to fill the positions, making it even less likely that all departments will have heads.

(E) [Unitron will not] reduce the average number of employees per department. --> Much like answer choice C, the average number of employees per department won't affect whether the departments have a head.

Does this help?

[JbhB682]

Hi Tiffany - 2 quick questions

When doing this -- do you categorize which "Type" of fill in the blank problem this is ?

The Manhattan CR guide mentions there are two types of fill in the blank problems

Most fill in the blank problems are "Strenghten" type fill in the blank problems, given the word Since per the CR guide.

Another type of fill in the blank problems are Assumptions type fill in the blank problems per the CR guide

Do you try to figure out -- which type of fill in the blank CR question is being asked ?

If so, do you see this a strengthener type or an assumption type fill in the blank problem ?

[JbhB682]

The goal is to fill in the blank that helps to further explain why some departments will be without department heads next year. This must be related to something that Unitron will not do.

When eliminating answer choices, ask yourself if it will explain why some departments will be without heads.

(A) [Unitron will not] raise the minimum qualifications an employee must have to be promoted to department head --> If Unitron did raise minimum qualifications, that would make it harder for them to fill department head roles. If minimum qualifications are not increasing, this doesn't explain why some departments will be without department heads. The situation is the same as described in the argument; nothing is explained further.

(B) [Unitron will not] promote any current department heads to higher managerial positions --> If Unitron did promote some current department heads, that would open even more positions to fill. Since they are not promoting any department heads, this doesn't further explain
why some department sill be without department heads. The situation is the same as described in the argument; nothing is explained further.

Hi Tiffany - you mention per the blue above , the goal is to select something to "FUTHER" explain why some departments will be without department heads next year.

I thought option A (text in red above) does "Further" explain why some departments will be without department heads next year.

If Unitron is NOT going to increase the minimum qualifications -- then that means the minimum qualifications are
scenario # 1) going to stay the same
OR
scenario # 2) going to reduce

If scenario # 1 or scenario # 2 is true -- doesnt that "FURTHER" explain why some departments will be without department heads next year.

[TiffanyB]

Hi Tiffany - you mention per the blue above , the goal is to select something to "FUTHER" explain why some departments will be without department heads next year.

Absolutely! The argument states that some department heads are retiring and there aren't enough other employees who "could take on the position of department head."

The argument then states a couple of potential solutions that Unitron will NOT pursue: they're not going to hire department heads from outside the company and they're NOT going to require department heads to run more than one department. If they were willing/able to take those actions, they could potentially solve the problem.

The fill in the blank should also be a potential solution that Unitron does not plan to pursue.

(A) raise the minimum qualifications an employee must have to be promoted to department head

The main issue in A is with the word raise. If Unitron raised the minimum qualifications to become department head, that would make it even more difficult for current employees to become department head. This is not a potential solution like the other ideas in this list.

I thought option A (text in red above) does "Further" explain why some departments will be without department heads next year.

If Unitron is NOT going to increase the minimum qualifications -- then that means the minimum qualifications are
scenario # 1) going to stay the same
OR
scenario # 2) going to reduce

scenario 1) If qualifications stay the same, then raising qualifications is still not a potential solution like the other items in the list.

scenario 2) Careful with this one! This cannot be safely assumed. Since the argument does not state that qualifications will be lowered, this information can't be inferred.

Contract (A) with correct answer (D), which does offer another potential solution. (D) states that managers who are senior to department heads could take the department head roles! This is a potential solution that isn't mentioned elsewhere in the argument. If Unitron decides not to do this, it would help to explain even further why there will be vacancies.