Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 17 Sep 2014, 00:13

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 427
Location: Aus
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing [#permalink] New post 19 Dec 2003, 07:05
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

67% (01:34) correct 33% (01:08) wrong based on 8 sessions
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.
Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount CodesKnewton GMAT Discount CodesManhattan GMAT Discount Codes
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 252
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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 :lol:
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 246
Location: MI
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 971
Location: Florida
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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
D)who cares about this consideration?
E)no mention of the wage range or anything. out of scope
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 252
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 252
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 19 Dec 2003, 09:09
official explanation and source please!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 427
Location: Aus
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 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
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 669 [0], given: 781

Re: CR - Economist [#permalink] New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing [#permalink] New post 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 Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Many states seek to reduce their budget deficits by cutting avohden 2 04 Nov 2013, 21:23
Technological improvements and reduced equipment costs nikhil.jones.s 0 10 Jul 2013, 04:00
To reduce costs, a company is considering a drastic bsv180985 6 25 Nov 2009, 07:11
33% of CEOs polled, indicate more payroll cuts trader1 0 18 Jun 2008, 10:28
Sigatoka disease drastically reduces the yield of banana bepositive 14 20 May 2008, 06:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.