Straffkey’s Project Guarantee

Welcome! You are encouraged to register with the site and login (for free). When you register, you support the site and your question history is saved.

The company Straffkey guarantees in its contracts with clients that for every ten computer programmers employed by Straffkey on a client project, Staffkey will employ at least one certified project manager. Since many of Straffkey's contracts are with the nation's government, its business increases during economic recessions, when the government spends more, and it has to hire more computer programmers at these times to complete its contracts. Therefore, while many jobs are threatened by economic recessions, the prospects of being hired as a project manager at Straffkey will not be lessened by the state of the economy as a whole.

Which of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?

Review: Straffkey's Project Guarantee


Explanation

Reading the question: in this prompt, the opinion comes near the end. We can match terms to see how well they are connected.

Evidence Term

Matches?

Conclusion Term

At least one certified PM per 10 programmers

≠

Prospects of being hired as PM never lessened

Hires more programmers during recessions

≠



In the conclusion, the phrase "never lessened" looks most vulnerable. The language pertaining to time on the left is "during recessions," which is a lot shorter than "never" or "always." Could the prospects somehow be only temporary? For example, when the economy recovered, the government spent less, Straffkey had to get rid of programmers, and then also PMs. Then the conclusion would be false, because hiring would be lessened the state of the economy. We have a filter "hiring during recessions is temporary."

Applying the filter: (B) and (D) both match our filter. Choice (E) discusses only whether it has honored the contract in the past, whereas the conclusion concerns the future.

Logical proof: we can analyze (B) and (D) by cases. In (B), if Staffkey were mobbed with applicants during recessions, that mobbing could outweigh their increased demand for PM's, hurting the argument. And if, somehow, fewer people applied, that would strength the argument. So (B) looks quite good. We consider extreme cases for (D). Say after large contracts, tons of people get laid off. That doesn't quite impact the argument, because we have no information on whether Straffkey's contracts are always or even generally completed under specific economic conditions, which is the key condition of the argument. So (D) is out. 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.
Continue »