Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 04:17 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 04:17
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,410
Own Kudos:
778,477
 [3]
Given Kudos: 99,987
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,410
Kudos: 778,477
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
ManifestDreamMBA
Joined: 17 Sep 2024
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,284
Own Kudos:
786
 [1]
Given Kudos: 236
Products:
Posts: 1,284
Kudos: 786
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
cburchfield
Joined: 11 Feb 2025
Last visit: 01 Aug 2025
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 19
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,564
 [3]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,564
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ManifestDreamMBA cburchfield

The official answer is definitely correct as written. To see why, it should help to describe the flaw in concrete terms before moving to the abstractions in the answer choices. (That's generally a good idea on any CR/RC with abstract answers.)

In this case, the author is getting their causal direction confused. They say that happier employees are more productive (H-->P). But then they conclude that since employees at Davis are more productive than those at Saturnine, the employees at Davis must be happier. This relies on a reversal of the premise to "Productive employees are happier" (P-->H). This kind of reversal is a common flaw. What's wrong with it? Just because happiness CAN cause productivity, that doesn't mean it's the only thing that does. Workers at Davis might be productive for other reasons than happiness (better technology, more direction from management, sheer desperation, etc.).

So why all the talk about "sets of circumstances"? C is just saying that what arises from one condition (people here are happier) couldn't come from another condition (e.g. people here are better managed). That's all they mean by "set of circumstances"--just the set of facts about what's going on at the company.
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,410
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99,987
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,410
Kudos: 778,477
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
A study has recently shown that happier employees are more productive. Employees at Davis Industries are more productive over the course of the business day than those at Saturnine Corporation. Therefore, we can conclude that Davis Industries' employees must be happier than those at Saturnine Corp.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

A. The evidence it uses is simply a paraphrase of its main conclusion.
B. It posits that an economic phenomenon is the effect of a psychological phenomenon.
C. It concludes that the consequence of one set of circumstances would not be produced by another.
D. It assumes that a phenomenon is the effect of an unrelated yet correlated phenomenon.
E. It claims that a conclusion is true without distinguishing this conclusion from the conditions that gave rise to it.

Magoosh Official Explanation:



Answer = (C).

The conclusion is that Davis' employees are happier than Saturnine's , on the evidence that the former are more productive. While we do have the study as possible evidence, it actually doesn’t work in this argument: happier employees may be more productive, but we don’t know that productive employees are necessarily happier. Correlation does not imply causality. It may be that productivity at Davis is a consequence of employee happiness (i.e. "one set of circumstance"), but we cannot conclude that this same consequence, productivity, could not be achieved by very different means at Saturnine. (C) best describes the issue with this conclusion.

(A) gets it backward; the evidence is not a paraphrase of its conclusion, but rather the inverse of the argument’s conclusion. A paraphrase would restate that happier employees are more productive, which this argument does not do again.

Choice (B) is not necessarily a problem. All the time, people spend money on product that make them happy: that's a psychological phenomenon (happiness) driving an economic phenomenon (purchases). It's unclear whether this relationship is happening here, but even if it is, that's not necessarily a logical flaw.

If (D) were true, the argument would have to claim that happiness and productivity always happen at the same time (correlation), which it doesn’t. Also, it is somewhat unrealistic to say that productivity and employee happiness are 100% unrelated; presumably there is some connection between these two, though not necessarily as lockstep as the argument maintains. We don't know for sure whether they two variables are either unrelated or correlated, so this choice doesn't withstand analysis.

Finally, the passage does distinguish the “condition” (productivity) from the conditions that gave rise to it (happiness) (E), it just doesn’t make the argument convincingly or provide enough detail for us to know if the two conditions are actually related or how.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts