  |
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 3 posts ] |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
mshermn
|
Post subject: PT55, S3, Q4 - Cassie: In order to  Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:38 am |
|
 |
| LSAT Geek |
 |
Thanks Received: 451
Posts: 1647
Joined: October 07th, 2009
|
We have to keep in mind why it's not feasible to reduce client loads. It's not feasible because it's difficult to recruit enough qualified agents. Answer choice (A) states that they will be able to hire more agents and thereby attacks the reason Melvin gives for why it's not feasible to reduce client loads.
(B) is a good effort but falls short. Just because the clients support this doesn't mean it's feasible.
(C) provides a reason to reduce client loads, but doesn't tell undermine the idea that it's not feasible.
(D) tells us what to do if we can't reduce client loads, but doesn't tell us that we can reduce client loads.
(E) says that we can't reduce client loads, this strengthens the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
chike_eze
|
Post subject: Re: Q4 - Cassie: In order to Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:55 am |
|
Thanks Received: 30
Posts: 206
Joined: January 22nd, 2011
 |
Most Thanked |
| December, 2011 |
|
At first glance, I thought Cassie's rebuttal would provide an alternative way to reduce client loads. i.e., Melvin says to reduce client loads we must hire more agents, and Cassie says alternatively we could reduce client loads by being more selective in choosing customers to service. (reduce # clients serviced)
What's the flaw in this line of thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mshermn
|
Post subject: Re: Q4 - Cassie: In order to Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:25 pm |
|
|
| LSAT Geek |
|
Thanks Received: 451
Posts: 1647
Joined: October 07th, 2009
|
Where do you see Cassie's rebuttal? I see Cassie say that we should reduce client loads, and I see that Melvin says that in order to reduce client loads it would be necessary to hire more agents, but where does Cassie offer a rebuttal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 3 posts ] |
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests |
| |
|
|
Connect with Manhattan LSAT
