Production manager: Our warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide. Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday. Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever. Therefore, we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.
Let's untangle the stimulus. The manager says that even with 250 people absent, their deliveries work perfectly. Therefore, he can easily let go of "these" 250 people.
Of course, the mistake is obvious - it's not as simple as that, because those absences due to personal or medical reasons will probably continue, even if some staff is dismissed, because humans are still humans.
Let's see which option says anything about it.
Quote:
A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.
This he does, of course, but not in confusion - deliberatly. So this is wrong.Quote:
B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.
Exactly what we are lookng for! The fact that he dismisses people doesn't guarantee that those who are left will never be absent.
Quote:
C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.
Well, he does it both with absenteeism and firing, so it's not exactly applicable. It doesn't hinder the conclusion, it generally illustrates the flaw in reasoning.Quote:
D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.
This is generally irrelevant for the discussion.Quote:
E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.
Once again, he applies this to both absent and fired people. So, within the scope of the argument, it's not particularly worsening the conclusion - but the whole line of reasoning. Also, we have no info how the dismissals will be distributed.
As a result, the only suitable option is B, which is the correct answer.