Prateek176 wrote:
I am still having trouble eliminating A.
(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.
How does this not cast a doubt on the conclusion. The additional hours won't be as productive as they could have been. But there will be an increase in productivity no matter how small. That's one part. But not to mention our labour force is also getting downsized. Can't this mean that resultant productivity is getting reduced. Wouldn't then the choice be a classic weakener.
Please help. Also provide a reason why B is better than A
The wording of A is not as clear as it could be. So, we have to carefully look at both A and the argument to see why A does not really weaken the argument.
The argument states the following as fact:
The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficientlyIn a well written Weaken question, the answer choices will not make statements that conflict with the supporting facts presented in the passage. However, they may seem to. Answer choices that seem to make statements that contradict the statements made in the passage are trap choices that seem to be weakeners but do not truly weaken the argument.
Now, let's consider choice A.
(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.Hmm. This choice seems to contradict the statement made in the passage. It seems to indicate that the remaining employees will be less productive rather than more productive if some employees are laid off. It doesn't really though. A is a trap choice.
Choice A is actually not a comparison of the productivity of employees before and after the layoffs. It is only a comparison between the productivity of employees during regular hours and the productivity of employees during overtime hours.
The passage makes clear that the employees will work more efficiently if some are laid off. All A indicates is that the remaining employees wouldn't work as productively during overtime hours as they would during regular hours. It could still be the case that they would work more efficiently during regular hour AND during overtime hours than they would without the layoffs. So, the truth is that A does not weaken the argument at all.
Now let's consider B.
(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.
While the structure of the passage is a little weak, the first sentence of the passage seems to be the conclusion. If the first sentence is the conclusion, then B weakens the conclusion, because B indicates that, even if the remaining employees were to work more efficiently, corporations simply won't be able to operate effectively if they lay off employees, and so drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs would not bolster corporate profits and the national economy but, rather, result in a reduction of corporate profits.
So, the correct answer is B.
_________________
Marty Murray | Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT course on GMAT Club.
Read Our Reviews