Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 06:22

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 424
Location: Aus
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 07:05
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

67% (01:34) correct 33% (01:08) wrong based on 13 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs will bolster corporate profits and the national economy. The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently and work additional overtime, in the absence of now-underutilized personnel. This increase in national productivity will cause new positions to spring up with the healthier economy, providing new openings for those who were made jobless.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the economist's prediction above?

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

(C) Some economists predict that the national economy will substantially improve in the next two years even without drastic reductions in payroll costs.

(D) If corporations reduce the number of employees, the average number of employees per company will decrease.

(E) Many of the new positions in a restructured economy would be lower-paying than those lost during the restructuring.
If you have any questions
New!
 Economist GMAT Tutor Discount Codes Manhattan GMAT Discount Codes EMPOWERgmat Discount Codes
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 247
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 07:22
I want to go with A

If the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours then the argument fails.

But thinking again, it might be ok that it is not AS PRODUCTIVE AS , because some work (which is less productive) may be better than no work and to compensate the decrease in productivity the workers may work for more hours.

B does not do it for me because even if "Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees ", the remaining employees can work doubly hard and more overtime to cover up.

C is not good because considering time here is out of scope .. or is it!!

D and E are out of scope.

considering the other options I find A is 'best', but I have my doubts as stated above.

cant think straight or address this again because it is kinda difficult to sneak in a big answer on GMAT when you are at work
Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 240
Location: MI
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 07:34
I would go with B.

B says -
Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

Here, the key word is "effectively", not the fact that the number is at minimum.
If the number of employees are just enough to do the job "effectively", you cannot reduce the number further.

Option A says that, the hours will not be "as productive as" regular hours, nonetheless, the additional hours will be productive (even if less).
Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 964
Location: Florida
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 07:55
will go with B
A) additional hrs will not be 'as productive', but surely will increase the productive hrs. author also confers this..
B)if most corporations are working with their minimum required workforce..if they lay-off, they will be compromising with the productivity.
C)out of scope
E)no mention of the wage range or anything. out of scope
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 247
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 08:11
I am not entirely convinced with A myself .. but have my doubts about B as well.

how will the efficiency be compromised if the workers that are not layed-off work extra hours and compensate the lack of labor .. this is in fact what is suggested by the author in the first place.
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 247
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 09:09
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 424
Location: Aus
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 12:59
Official explanation:
The conclusion in this argument is in the first sentence: reducing employees will increase profits and improve the economy in general. The author then explains how this will happen. Choice (B) undermines this line of thinking by pointing out that what the author suggests is wrong.
Source : Got it in one of the kaplan tests.
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3460
Followers: 67

Kudos [?]: 862 [0], given: 781

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2003, 13:53
Geethu wrote:
Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs will bolster corporate profits and the national economy. The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently and work additional overtime, in the absence of now-underutilized personnel. This increase in national productivity will cause new positions to spring up with the healthier economy, providing new openings for those who were made jobless.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the economist's prediction above?

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

(C) Some economists predict that the national economy will substantially improve in the next two years even without drastic reductions in payroll costs.

(D) If corporations reduce the number of employees, the average number of employees per company will decrease.

(E) Many of the new positions in a restructured economy would be lower-paying than those lost during the restructuring.

B is best.

if they are already at their minimum, they wont be able to cut costs by a reduction in the workforce.
Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2013, 20:40
Go to "B" Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.
Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing   [#permalink] 17 Jan 2013, 20:40
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Many states seek to reduce their budget deficits by cutting 4 04 Nov 2013, 21:23
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs 0 10 Jul 2013, 04:00
To reduce costs, a company is considering a drastic 6 25 Nov 2009, 07:11
Sigatoka disease drastically reduces the yield of banana 14 20 May 2008, 06:42
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs have 7 15 Apr 2007, 22:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.