A?

B for me

The consulting firm's (CF) conclusion was that the employees of company P are dissatisfied because of their own psychological problems. The question then asks us to find out which argument DOES NOT go against this conclusion, in other words - goes with the conclusion of the consulting firm.

A -> "no account was taken of the fact that for the past year many Company P employees worked on a joint venture with Company O, at Company O’s facilities." - Does not go along with the conclusion of the CF as it examines another aspect of the cause of dissatisfaction.

C -> "The consulting firm’s conception of what constitutes uncommonly bad working conditions is not identical to that of Company P’s employees" - Does not go along with the CF's conclusion as it challenges the basic premises of the CF's conclusion

D -> "The reason given by Company P’s employees for their dissatisfaction varied greatly from employee to employee" - Does not go as it challenges the data collection and interpretation methods of the CF

E -> "A battery of set performed on Company P’s employees one month ago revealed no significant psychological stresses or problems" - Is the absolute opposite of the CF's conclusion.

Whereas, B "Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions" - supports the conclusion or at least the basis of the conclusion drawn by the CF.

Must be (B) since it only strengthens the conclusion, not cast doubt.

B seals it.

Guys. Really healthy discussion here with a true diversity of answers. More explanation for those who are choosing a different choice. I will post OA later as I want to invite more to participate on this.

I go with D...

A) This casts doubt on their finding because working concds. at O could result in the dissatisfaction.

B) This casts doubt because it could be that the consulting company has not addressed some major issue that many employees are suffereing from (the same issues that other employees in other companies are suffering from). i.e. If a group is specific group is dissatisfied thats one thing if multiple unrelated groups are dissatisfied thats another...eveyone can't have psychological problems!

C) This casts doubt because the consulting company could have a different def. of bad working conditions (similar to Alberto Gonzales def. of Geneva Convention...sorry had to throw that in )

D) In this choice the dissatisfaction varied greatly from employee to employee and it could mean that the employees have issues separate from anything the company is responsible for, in effect strengthening the consultants conclusions.

E) If there were no probs a month ago that means that something must have happened in the last month for the employees to be dissatified with their work and not psych. probs that they would have had the whole time.
_________________

"No! Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.

OA is D. good explanation and discussion