An overwhelming proportion of the most productive employees at SaleCo

Hi Karishma,
I got doubts on this one.
In answer choice B, we can clearly see an alternate reason in that their supervisor contributed to their increase productivity. So, 10 hours 4 day schedule alone may not be the reason for the increase in productivity. Isn't that sufficient to doubt that the plan will fail?

In answer choice C, your answer takes into assumption that the number of unproductive employees > number of productive employees? What if its the other way. That the number of productive employees is greater, then overall productivity will increase, won't it?

Supervisors contributed to increased productivity by making the employees work 10 hrs 4 days. If they make other employees do the same, the 10 hrs 4 days schedule could increase their productivity too. I don't see any other way in which the supervisors contributed to increased productivity. Even if the supervisors did contribute to increased productivity, it doesn't change the fact that 10 hrs 4 day schedule contributed. So 10 hrs 4 day schedule should contribute to increased productivity of other employees too (or at least, it should not make one doubt the suitability of the plan)

And no, there is no such assumption in C. It doesn't matter how many employees are highly productive. What it tells us is that not all employees work 10 hrs 4 days and hence it is relatively peaceful for the last 2 hrs. This increases the productivity. If everyone works for the last two hrs too, the relative quiet will be lost and no one's productivity will increase. In fact, the productivity of the employees who get those 2 extra hrs of quiet time might actually decrease since they will not get that extra productivity enhancing quiet time. Hence, the plan may not really be suitable. This makes us doubt that the plan will succeed.

Hi Karishma,

Thanks for the explanation. However, I still have few doubts in option B and C. Request you to please look at my doubts and provide your reasoning

I can see that answer is C. But when I attempted the question, I thought that I am making assumption in both options and hence both answers could have been incorrect.

Taking Option C
While analyzing this option, I thought that I am making an assumption and that assumption is same as the below colored bold part. i.e. the relative quiet will be lost and no one's productivity will increase

Isn't it an assumption that when all employees will work together, then most of the employees will disturb each other and hence will have a fall in productivity.
It could have been the case that only few employees will disturb each other and hence there is overall increase in the productivity. i.e Plan will work.

Taking Option B
Supervisors made them achieve the increase in productivity. My doubt is the same effect may or may not have on every employee. i.e Isn't we are assuming that what works for a small sample will work for overall group, and hence it will improve productivity. It could have been the case that employees like to work without Supervisor pressure and hence volunteering from supervisor may have an negative effect on the productivity.

I think, just like we have an rule in Grammar- Squint Modifier- Looking London Talking Tokyo, same rule is getting applied on both options. i.e one way it strengthen the option and other way it weakens the option.

I know I am wrong somewhere. I would like to seek your opinion on this. Please correct me.

Thanks
H
P.S - because argument deals with real time scenario, anything against supervisor will likely to be picked by me.. lolz

You have to cast doubt on the plan, not make it fail for certain. Strengthen/weaken questions strengthen or weaken the conclusion; they don't prove/disprove the conclusion for certain.

While considering option (C), of course there are assumptions that must hold for the plan to fail. But the option (C) provides reason to doubt that the plan will work. The language of (C) makes it quite clear "has allowed ... work two hours alone each day ... relatively undisturbed ...". Think of it from a practical viewpoint and it makes sense. Think you are apart of this plan and then you get info given in (C). Wouldn't you doubt your plan? That's all you need to do - doubt it, not make it fail.
Now think what happens if you get the info given in (B). Does it make you doubt your plan or would you be more comfortable in going ahead with it? The info in (B) doesn't spoil your plan in any way. Whether the plan will actually work or not, only time will tell.

Also, don't obsess on any one question. Try to understand it and then move on. If some doubts linger, other examples will help out. In Quant, everything is clear cut and perfect. In Verbal, there will always be ifs and buts.

An overwhelming proportion of the most productive employees at SaleCo's regional offices work not eight hours a day, five days a week, as do other SaleCo employees, but rather ten hours a day, four days a week, with Friday off. Noting this phenomenon, SaleCo's president plans to increase overall productivity by keeping the offices closed on Fridays and having all employees work the same schedule-ten hours a day, four days a week.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most reason to doubt that the president's plan, if implemented, will achieve its stated purpose?

For weakening questions, we need to attack the conclusion.The correct answer choice will not simply contradict the conclusion. Instead, the correct answer will undermine the conclusion, by showing that the conclusion fails to account for some element or possibility.

A. Typically, a SaleCo employee's least productive hours in the workplace are the early afternoon hours.
We are not concerned knowing which are the least or most productive hours. We are concerned with the relation between working 4 days a week and increased productivity
B. None of the employees who work four days a week had volunteered to work that schedule, but all were assigned to it by their supervisors.
This is a strengthener.
If employees work better when work is assigned by others, then this new plan imposed by an other person ( here president) can also make everyone productive
C. Working ten hours a day has allowed the most productive employees to work two hours alone each day in their respective offices relatively undisturbed by fellow employees.
This answer choice finds a gap.This answer points to show that the conclusion in the stimulus has failed to account for the possibility that the most productive employees may be productive because they got to work two hours alone each day in their respective offices relatively undisturbed by fellow employees.Now, if everyone works 10 hours a day, no one will be able to work alone any time , and hence there is a high chance that no one will be productive any more.
D. Employees at SaleCo are compensated not on the basis of how many hours a week they work but on the basis of how productive they are during the hours they are at work.
We are not discussing compensation here. We are talking about how everyone can be productive.
E. Those SaleCo employees who have a four-day workweek do not take any of their office work to do at home on Fridays.
This may be true. But this choice does not discuss how the four days a week work schedule for all will impact everyone's productivity

Karishma

Can this be considered a 700 level because it is very tricky

Thanks

It certainly is a little tricky. Plan/proposal questions are harder to work out as compared with simple weaken questions. Option B confuses you but once you read option C, you can work out that option B is incorrect.
It is between 650 - 700 level.
The important thing to remember here is that you only need to cast doubt, not ensure that the plan fails.

How can we rule out option D??: If employees are compensated on productivity then all of them must be at the peak of their productivity because every employee wants to be compensated more. so making them work 10 hrs a day for 4 days wont help increase productivity.

We cannot infer that "all of them must be at the peak of their productivity". Productivity could depend on lots of factors, some internal to the person, some external. Say, the workers make widgets at work. They are paid according to how many widgets are made (productivity) rather than how many hrs they work. How many widgets they make depends on the speed at which they work, the infra available, whether the machines to make widgets are available when they need or do they have to wait etc.
They may not be able to make the maximum number of widgets that they can even if they try their best due to other constraints. They may be able to make even more if they are provided some extra facilities e.g. more machines, more room etc. Hence, its too far fetched to say that since they are paid based on productivity, they are working to their full capacity. Even if it were true, productivity can always be increased by changing/adding/removing/updating some factors.

can anyone tell me why A is wrong
president of company thinks to increase overall productivity
suppose in the new schedule they are unproductive for 2 hr every day then the increase of hrs and cancellation of a day compensating the extra work will not help to increase the productivity of the plan

working 5 days a week they are productive for suppose 7 hrs (so total productive hrs = 35 hrs)
where as in the new plan they are productive for 2 hrs each day(couldl be more because of fatigue of extra work then the productive hrs will be (40-8=32 hrs)

helps to doubt the plan
please explain

The argument has already mentioned that majority works in 10 hours 4 days shift. A points out that they are least productive in the early after noon hours, So what?? Does that mean they donot compensate this time by being most productive at some other time of the day. This doesn't attack the conclusion or plan made by the president. The correct answer clearly states that they stay longer to get some undisturbed time from their fellow mates. Hence, a weaker to the plan.

Regional Offices work 10 hours, 4 days a week so why not make everyone do this? How can we support this change to have Friday off and improve productivity?

My thought process on each answer choice below:

A. This choice seems to say that each afternoon the employees are least productive. Well eliminating one of these unproductive afternoons could increase productivity; however, no detail is given to the hours these employees are productive or whether their afternoon of productivity stops at some point or continues until the end of the work day.
B. Supports the president's plan because if the employees that work 4 days a week were ordered to do so and became more productive this would coincide with the President's plans.
C. This choice shows that an extra two hours allows for undisturbed and, therefore, productive work. The choice does not elaborate that if everyone is asked to work 2 hours more, if there would be a continuation of undisturbed work since there'd be just as many employees as the other 8 hours of a day. However, one can assume this concept of undisturbed work might continue.
D. If this was correct, then there would be no reason to monitor hours or begin this discussion or moving around hours. Irrelevant and inconsistent with the prompt.
E. This is irrelevant and mutually exclusive to the prompt. If the employees are only working 40 hours Mon-Thur then having work around them that they're not doing on Friday is irrelevant. Let's assume the idea was to help other employees who were still working they kept their work on them to answer questions, it would still be irrelevant because if everyone switched to a Monday - Thursday workweek no work would be needed on Friday.

Eliminate: E, D, B
C is more correct than A because it gives details as to why the employees are most productive.

An overwhelming proportion of the most productive employees at SaleCo's regional offices work not eight hours a day, five days a week, as do other SaleCo employees, but rather ten hours a day, four days a week, with Friday off. Noting this phenomenon, SaleCo's president plans to increase overall productivity by keeping the offices closed on Fridays and having all employees work the same schedule-ten hours a day, four days a week.

P : Productive employees work ten hours a day, four days a week, with Friday Off
A : Difference required for working hours according to specific jobs performed can be ignored.
C : Increase overall productivity by enforcing other employees to follow the above-mentioned schedule.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most reason to doubt that the president's plan, if implemented, will achieve its stated purpose?

(A) Typically, a SaleCo employee's least productive hours in the workplace are the early afternoon hours.
-> Irrelevant. The argument did not mention anything about when the working hours are during a day.

(B) None of the employees who work four days a week had volunteered to work that schedule, but all were assigned to it by their supervisors.
-> Irrelevant. Whether employees volunteered or not does not matter. The premise is only providing information that such working hours were very productive.

(C) Working ten hours a day has allowed the most productive employees to work two hours alone each day in their respective offices relatively undisturbed by fellow employees.
-> Correct. If most of the employees in the company are forced to work in the same schedule, the above-mentioned advantage, which abled employees to be more productive, will be disappeared.

(D) Employees at SaleCo are compensated not on the basis of how many hours a week they work but on the basis of how productive they are during the hours they are at work.
-> Irrelevant. The argument is not talking about compensation policy.

(E) Those SaleCo employees who have a four-day workweek do not take any of their office work to do at home on Fridays.
-> Irrelevant. The premise already mentioned that the most productive employees do not work on Fridays. Moreover, no information is given to determine whether works done outside the company are included in productivity calculation.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.