Executives titles inside corporations and outside

[dianapaolasanchez]

Fearing that the use of titles indicating position in the corporation tends to make the corporate hierarchy rigid by inhibiting communication, some corporations shun the use of executives titles. A title, however, can facilitate an executive's dealings with external business since it encourage outsiders to treat the executive with respect. The obvious compromise is for these executives to use their titles externally but not within their corporations.

Which of the following, if true, provide the most support for the compromise suggest above?

a)Only small corporations can preserve and atmosphere of mutual respect and high regard without having a rigid corporate hierarchy
b) Referring to an executive by using a title can encourage both those outside the organization and inside the organization to treat the executives with respect.
c) Even if it is widely known within a corporation that the corporations' executives use executives title outside their organizations, this knowledge does not by itself inhibit communication within the corporation.
d) A rigid corporate hierarchy can promote efficiency within an organization as well as provide access to the corporation for those outside the corporation.
e) Although many corporate executives disapprove of rigid hierarchies on the grounds that they inhibit communication, the vast majority of executives have no qualms about internally and externally.

I think that the answer is C, because made reference between the executives with their titles outside of the organizations and inside, but I am not sure; A sounds good for me too. Can some one help me?

[tim]

You should treat this as a strengthen/weaken question. We're looking for which of the answers most strengthens the conclusion that the executives should use their titles externally but not within their corporations. Answer choice A, by claiming that only small corporations can preserve respect without a rigid hierarchy, tends to weaken the conclusion. It suggests that such titles are in fact necessary. Answer choice B provides some evidence that using these titles can engender respect; however, this has absolutely no bearing on the problem itself, which asked us to address the problem of inhibited communication. Answer choice C of course does exactly what we want it to, by explaining to us how it is possible for executives to retain titles in dealing with outside corporations while allowing them not to inhibit communication internally. Answer choice D looks almost like B in the sense that it offers a rationale for some advantages that could accrue with a rigid hierarchy; however, it does not address the main issue of communication. Answer choice E does nothing more than describe the opinions of certain executives, which has absolutely no bearing on how comfortable their subordinates will feel with communication..

[dewanak]

I also marked C as the correct answer but OA is B.

[suyash.jhawar]

What is the source of question.Are you sure OA is B?looks clear C to me.RON/STACEY your views on this!

[RonPurewal]

What is the source of question.Are you sure OA is B?looks clear C to me.RON/STACEY your views on this!

should definitely be (c). whoever is saying that it's (b) should go back and check the source.

(b) is definitely the wrong answer, since that choice actually works directly against the suggested compromise. if (b) is true, then that's a strong reason to use titles both inside and outside the corporation -- which is exactly what the compromise is NOT going to do.

[agha79]

Boys & girls i confrim OA is "C" for this question. i saw this question as well on my GMAT prep exam one

[tim]

thanks for the confirmation..