sshivanis04 wrote:
1. If you negate E then it states :
Companies that rely on both full-time employees and volunteer labor may not increase their overall revenue per working hour.
Negating E makes the conclusion fall apart.
2. Where as negating B means :
The amount of administrative work to be performed in internet companies is not small enough that it can reasonably be completed by fewer full-time employees. This could mean that volunteer will perform the administrative task and this does not affect the conclusion.
Pl post the official answer.
Got a PM to respond to this one.
Frankly, there is no correct choice here. The question as well as the option statements are not of the highest quality. As is, no option statement qualifies as the correct choice.
Let me elaborate.
What is the conclusion of the passage?Beginning internet companies should imitate this successful model by hiring only a
small core staff and leaving the rest of the tasks to volunteers. ( we are talking about small staff i.e. we are talking in terms of absolute numbers, not in terms of comparative terms such as fewer or greater. This understanding is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL if you solve GMAT Assumption questions. These are the keywords which make or break an option statement)
What is the basis of the conclusion?At the same time,
the overall profits of most of these companies have increased, since a much smaller percentage of overall revenue per working hour must be directed toward salaries - The first part i.e. the underlined part probably means that the profits of these internet companies have increased over time. What is the reason for this increase? The reason is that a smaller percentage of revenue must be given as salaries. It means that a lesser percentage of revenue now goes towards salaries now than before.
So, the argument is like this:
Since the profits of internet companies have increased because of lower outgo of salaries as proportion of revenues, the new starting internet companies should imitate this model and hire only a small staff.
Now, let's look at option B:
B)
The amount of administrative work to be performed in internet companies is small enough that it can reasonably be completed by fewer full-time employees. - "Fewer" is a comparative term which means that the work can now be completed with less number of employees than before.
But is the conclusion about "Reducing" the number of employees? Or even is the conclusion a comparative statement?
The answer to both of these questions is NO. The conclusion only says that the new internet should hire a small staff, not fewer staff than someone else. So, option B is incorrect.
Option E:
E)
Companies that rely on both full-time employees and volunteer labor increase their overall revenue per working hour.My first question is: "increase from what?". I have to assume that it is talking about general increase over time. Even if I assume that this option is incorrect because we are talking in terms of profits. Even if revenue per working hour does not increase, the profits may still increase if the costs go down. Rather, the basis of the conclusion is talking about decline in costs, not increase in revenues. So, this option statement is also incorrect.
Other options are also incorrect for different reasons.
Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________