In plain English
Both the exam and the interview reward the same thing: a clear claim, a mechanism that explains why it is true, evidence, and honesty about where the argument breaks. Naming frameworks scores nothing; using one to reach a defensible conclusion scores everything.
The advanced view
A proposition-generating argument has four moves: identify the gap or tension in existing reasoning; specify the mechanism linking construct A to outcome B; state the boundary conditions and moderators under which it holds; and derive an observable implication that could falsify it. This is the structure of a theory paper and, compressed, of a good case recommendation.
Frameworks
Claim → mechanism → boundary
Say what is true, why it is true, and where it stops being true.
Pyramid principle
Answer first, three supporting arguments, evidence under each. Never build to the punchline.
Critical reflection
Name the assumption the framework makes and check whether this case satisfies it.
So-what test
Every analytical statement must end in a decision, a number, or a next step.
Framework criticism in one line each: Five Forces assumes stable industry boundaries and ignores complementors; RBV struggles to say how a resource is built; BCG assumes independent units and that share drives cost; disruption theory is often applied retrospectively; the Balanced Scorecard can multiply metrics without prioritising them. Saying one of these, and why it matters here, is what separates a top answer from a competent one.
Worked example — turning analysis into a recommendation
Step 1 of 9
- 1Finding: margin fell from 14% to 11% on revenue of 900.
Must know cold
- ✓Answer first, then the three reasons, then the evidence.
- ✓Every framework has an assumption; name it before you rely on it.
- ✓Quantify the size of the problem before recommending the fix.
- ✓Say what would change your mind — that is critical reflection, scored explicitly.
Common pitfalls
- ×Framework tourism: touching five models and concluding nothing.
- ×Recommendations without a number attached to the upside.
- ×Hedging every claim so that no decision follows.
- ×Confusing description of the case facts with analysis of them.
Exercises
Try each one on paper before revealing the worked solution.
Exercise 1
Write a proposition about why some acquirers create value from serial acquisitions while others do not, in the claim-mechanism-boundary format.