Explanation
Reading the question: the prompt doesn't presents not an
argument, but rather a situation. We're presented with only facts and no
opinion. So it makes sense when we get to the question stem and see that we're
asked to "explain."
Creating a filter: as we discussed in Osprey Prey, since
we are explaining, we should identify a "mystery" with two parts. The correct
answer will probably address both parts of the mystery, without contradicting
any of the facts given. The mystery's two parts are that 1) the team has been
trained, but 2) complaints are still high. A possible explanation is that there
is a "new problem." For example, maybe the training was conducted in an
insulting manner and drove away some of the best agents, so the remaining
agents are knowledgeable but defective in some new way. We'll look for
something like this in the answers... a "new problem."
Applying the filter: Choice (A) presents a new problem,
but not one that would affect customer complaints. So (A) is out. Choice (B)
presents a new problem: increased wait time. It's not just an explanation; it's
an explanation that describes how the action in part 1) above could generate the
problem in part 2) above. So (B) is in. Choice (C) is relevant, and plausible,
but it doesn't generate a new problem, as we're looking for. Also, agents
wouldn't have to be trained in every conceivable problem in order to be much
better trained and for complaints to go down. In other words, it says something
about part 1) of our mystery, but doesn't establish any connection to part 2).
So (C) is out. Choice (D) fails to connect to part 2); if the help team is
better trained, they should rate higher. Choice (E) also fails to connect to
part 2); in fact, losing unhappy customers would be a reason to think
complaints would go down. The correct answer is (B).
If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.