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.