A television manufacturing plant has a total of 1,000 workers, though

Question

A television manufacturing plant has a total of 1,000 workers, though an average of 10 are absent on any given day for various reasons. On days when exactly 10 workers are absent, the plant produces television at its normal rate. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the plant could fire 10 workers without any loss in production.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Source: LSAT & CR Archive

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) ignores the possibility that if 10 workers were fired, each of the remaining workers would produce more televisions than previously

(B) fails to show that the absentee rate would drop if 10 workers were fired

(C) takes for granted that the normal rate of production can be attained only when no more than the average number of workers are absent

(D) overlooks the possibility that certain workers are crucial to the production of televisions

(E) takes for granted that the rate of production is not affected by the number of workers employed at the plant

Source: LSAT & CR Archive

chetan2u · Accepted Answer

ParthSanghavi ,

The total number is 1000, and on an AVERAGE 10 are absent...
On days when 10 or less are absent that is the strength is 990 and more, the production does not get affected.

The argument therefore suggests that we can cut down 10 employees, meaning 990 becomes the actual strength. 
But what has this done ??
So it has brought you to a level where you can't have any absentee as any absentee will take the effective strength less than 990 and this would affect the production.

So, what is the guarantee that there will be 0 absenteeism.

Choice B states exactly this..

GMATNinja · Answer

In this passage, the author concludes that "it is reasonable to assume that the plant could fire 10 workers without any loss in production." To support this conclusion, they point out that "on days when exactly 10 workers are absent, the plant produces televisions at its normal rate."

Let's consider the answers. The correct one should give us the grounds on which the "argument is  most vulnerable  to criticism."

The author concludes that the plant "could fire 10 workers without any  loss in production ." So even if the remaining workers produced " more televisions  than previously," this would not weaken the argument, since this would not be a loss in production. (A) is incorrect.

The author supports the conclusion by stating that when 10 workers are absent, the plant produces televisions at its normal rate. So the argument hinges on the  assumption  that if 10 people were fired, then 10 people would be absent. But is this a reasonable assumption?

Earlier, the passage tells us that an average of 10 workers are absent on any given day. So if 10 people were fired, and the absentee rate stayed the same, the plant would have  20 fewer  workers than usual. And if that were the case, it seems likely that production would fall, and the conclusion would be wrong. So for the argument to hold, we'd need to  assume  that if 10 people were fired, the absentee rate would drop. Because if it didn't, the number of workers would drop, causing production to drop.

So the fact that the argument "fails to show that the  absentee rate would drop  if 10 workers were fired" is strong grounds for criticism, and (B) is correct.

If anything, the argument seems to be taking it for granted that the normal rate of production can be attained even if MORE than the average number of works are absent. In other words, the argument seems to be assuming that if more than 10 workers were absent, production would stay the same. But it's certainly not assuming that the normal production rate can only be attained if NO MORE than 10 workers are absent, so (C) is out.

Notice the passage doesn't claim that the plant could fire ANY 10 workers, but just that the "plant could fire 10 workers without any loss in production." So even if there were some workers who were crucial to the production of televisions, this wouldn't harm the argument. As long as there are some workers at the plant who are NOT crucial, the conclusion holds up. And since we already know that production continues at the normal rate when  an average of 10 people  are absent, (D) is out.

The author claims that if 10 workers were fired, the plant could continue without any  loss in production . For this argument to hold, the author doesn't  need  to assume that "the rate of production is not affected by the number of workers employed at the plant." Maybe the number workers employed at the plant  does  affect the rate of production? Maybe if 10 workers were fired, production would  increase ? Or maybe if say 50 workers were fired, it  would  affect the rate of production somehow? Any of these could be true, and the argument would still hold.

Since the author doesn't need to take it for granted that production is unaffected by "the number of workers employed at the plant," (E) is incorrect and we're left with (A).

I hope that helps!

ParthSanghavi · Answer

daagh   chetan2u

Please explain this one

ParthSanghavi · Answer

Thanks for a quick response

Arro44 · Answer

Firing 10 people leaves the factory very exposed each time one of the remaining workers is missing.

Based on the numbers provided it is still likely that 9.9 workers are missing on any given day after the staff reduction.

Sufficient skeleton staff: 990
Average abstentees: ~10

Likely available people on a given day 980

GmatPrime · Answer

Let's break down the argument first,

Given: - Plant employees 1,000 workers
 - Absent on any given day: Max 10 (with normal production rate)

Argument: - Fire 10 employees; will not lead to loss of production

Criticism: - Not the same 10 employees are absent all the time
 - Of the remaining 990, new 10 employees can be absent

Let's examine the options now:

(A) ignores the possibility that if 10 workers were fired, each of the remaining workers would produce more televisions than previously
-  May be true but not what we are looking for. In this case, when the new 10 will be absent- that can hamper the production speed again . This statement is outside the scope of the present argument.

(B) fails to show that the absentee rate would drop if 10 workers were fired
- Exactly what we were saying in our criticism above. CORRECT.

(C) takes for granted that the normal rate of production can be attained only when no more than the average number of workers are absent
-  The argument is not taking taking this for granted. Rather the premise of the argument is totally different . The premise used is that- 'Since 10 workers are absent; fire the 10 and you will still have the same production rate'. The flaw is in the assumption that the same 10 employees are absent all the time.

(D) overlooks the possibility that certain workers are crucial to the production of televisions
-  Nothing in the argument targets crucial or non-crucial workers separately .

(E) takes for granted that the rate of production is not affected by the number of workers employed at the plant
-  Same as with 'C'.

Sneha333 · Answer

it actually assumes that everyone is doing same job.
What if some of those 10 are the ones doing the most important stuff.
I think D is the answer.

GmatPrime · Answer

Let's try negating this,

D.  Does not  overlook the possibility that certain workers are crucial to the production of televisions

If this is true then the author acknowledges that  certain workers  are crucial to the production

Even then, it is not equal to saying that  the  workers being fired  are the crucial ones .

Hope it helps.

Thelionking1234 · Answer

I am confused in correct answer: "absentee rate would drop"
Rather I think number of employees present after firing 10 employees will reduce because new 10 employees will be absent.

PrinceJ · Answer

GMATNinja  can you please help with your explanation to this question?

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB · Answer

Context: A television manufacturing plant has a total of 1,000 workers, though an average of 10 are absent on any given day for various reasons. Premises: On days when exactly 10 workers are absent, the plant produces television at its normal rate. Conclusion: Plant could fire 10 workers without any loss in production. The premise tells us that the plant produces at normal rate with 990 of the 1000 workers. But does this mean that 10 workers can be fired without any loss in production? Will the remaining 990 workers never take an off? Very unlikely! This is a flaw. (A) Ignores the possibility that if 10 workers were fired, each of the remaining workers would produce more televisions than previously The flaw is that it ignores that of the 990 workers, on average again 9 or 10 will be absent every day. It assumes the same productivity. There is no reason to consider that the productivity will get enhanced. (B) Fails to show that the absentee rate would drop if 10 workers were fired Correct. For the plant to produce at normal levels after firing 10 workers, the absentee rate must drop to 0%. All workers must come in to ensure the same production as now. The argument does not tell us that that will happen. Only if it does happen can we reach the conclusion that the plant could fire 10 workers without any loss in production. (C) Takes for granted that the normal rate of production can be attained only when no more than the average number of workers are absent The argument does not talk about what happens when more than average number of workers are absent. It doesn’t say that the normal production rate is not attained in that case and is only attained when average number or fewer workers are absent. (D) Overlooks the possibility that certain workers are crucial to the production of televisions Those could be the workers who are not fired. The logic works even if some workers are crucial. (E) Takes for granted that the rate of production is not affected by the number of workers employed at the plant Overall rate of production will change with change in number of employees. The argument does not assume that it doesn’t change with change in number of employees. It considers only the actively working employees and assumes that that number will not change when 10 people are fired because absentee rate will become 0%. But the argument does not mention this unjustified assumption. Answer (B) Discussion on Flaw in Reasoning: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

A television manufacturing plant has a total of 1,000 workers, though

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A television manufacturing plant has a total of 1,000 workers, though

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards