At a certain investment bank that specializes in mergers and acquisitions, the highest percentage of potential deals that are never completed are those in which the bank's senior partner was the lead negotiator. Each of the senior partner's colleagues, however, states unequivocally that she is the most adept negotiator at the bank.
Which one of the following, if true, goes furthest toward showing that these two statements could both be correct?
Pre-thinking- We need to see, what is the reason for such discrepancy.
A. The current senior partner has a better record of success than her immediate predecessor did. -> So, we are saying she is better, one statement is true. But does it answer why she failed to deliver results. Incorrect.
B. Many of the junior partners were trained by the senior partner when they first joined the firm. -> Irrelevant. Training and success of senior partner is very remote to link.
C. The senior partner works only on potential deals that have the least chance of coming to fruition. -> Now, we can keep both facts. She is talented but, she has always deals which are tough nuts to crack, so she failed multiple times. If we see closely, we are pointing out the issue of deals, she is working on, not on the merit of senior partner. It makes sense. Let's keep it.
D. The number of mergers in which the investment bank has been involved has declined slightly in each of the past three years. -> I don't see any link here with talent senior partner loosing cases. Irrelevant.
E. The senior partner was chosen by the board of directors of the bank's parent company, a large publishing conglomerate. -> Irrelevant again, Her selection doesn't link with her failure rate.
So, I think C.