GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Nov 2018, 14:10

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
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • How to QUICKLY Solve GMAT Questions - GMAT Club Chat

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     10:00 AM PST

    The reward for signing up with the registration form and attending the chat is: 6 free examPAL quizzes to practice your new skills after the chat.
  • The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     06:00 PM EST

     07:00 PM EST

    What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 414
Location: Aus
Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2003, 07:05
3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (01:33) correct 48% (01:44) wrong based on 288 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs will bolster corporate profits and the national economy. The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently and work additional overtime, in the absence of now-underutilized personnel. This increase in national productivity will cause new positions to spring up with the healthier economy, providing new openings for those who were made jobless.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the economist's prediction above?


(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

(C) Some economists predict that the national economy will substantially improve in the next two years even without drastic reductions in payroll costs.

(D) If corporations reduce the number of employees, the average number of employees per company will decrease.

(E) Many of the new positions in a restructured economy would be lower-paying than those lost during the restructuring.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 212
Location: MI
Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2003, 07:34
1
I would go with B.

B says -
Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

Here, the key word is "effectively", not the fact that the number is at minimum.
If the number of employees are just enough to do the job "effectively", you cannot reduce the number further.

Option A says that, the hours will not be "as productive as" regular hours, nonetheless, the additional hours will be productive (even if less).
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 937
Location: Florida
Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2003, 07:55
will go with B
A) additional hrs will not be 'as productive', but surely will increase the productive hrs. author also confers this..
B)if most corporations are working with their minimum required workforce..if they lay-off, they will be compromising with the productivity.
C)out of scope
D)who cares about this consideration?
E)no mention of the wage range or anything. out of scope
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 414
Location: Aus
Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2003, 12:59
2

Official explanation:



The conclusion in this argument is in the first sentence: reducing employees will increase profits and improve the economy in general. The author then explains how this will happen. Choice (B) undermines this line of thinking by pointing out that what the author suggests is wrong.

Source : Got it in one of the kaplan tests.
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3382
Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2003, 13:53
Geethu wrote:
Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs will bolster corporate profits and the national economy. The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently and work additional overtime, in the absence of now-underutilized personnel. This increase in national productivity will cause new positions to spring up with the healthier economy, providing new openings for those who were made jobless.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the economist's prediction above?

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

(C) Some economists predict that the national economy will substantially improve in the next two years even without drastic reductions in payroll costs.

(D) If corporations reduce the number of employees, the average number of employees per company will decrease.

(E) Many of the new positions in a restructured economy would be lower-paying than those lost during the restructuring.



B is best.

if they are already at their minimum, they wont be able to cut costs by a reduction in the workforce.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 1
Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2013, 20:40
Go to "B" Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 50670
Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2018, 19:37
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 234
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
Re: Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2018, 07:18
AjiteshArun , Bunuel , abhimahna , MartyMurray

I am still having trouble eliminating A.

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

How does this not cast a doubt on the conclusion. The additional hours won't be as productive as they could have been. But there will be an increase in productivity no matter how small. That's one part. But not to mention our labour force is also getting downsized. Can't this mean that resultant productivity is getting reduced. Wouldn't then the choice be a classic weakener.

Please help. Also provide a reason why B is better than A
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 265
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2018, 07:06
2
Prateek176 wrote:
I am still having trouble eliminating A.

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

How does this not cast a doubt on the conclusion. The additional hours won't be as productive as they could have been. But there will be an increase in productivity no matter how small. That's one part. But not to mention our labour force is also getting downsized. Can't this mean that resultant productivity is getting reduced. Wouldn't then the choice be a classic weakener.

Please help. Also provide a reason why B is better than A


The wording of A is not as clear as it could be. So, we have to carefully look at both A and the argument to see why A does not really weaken the argument.

The argument states the following as fact:

The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently

In a well written Weaken question, the answer choices will not make statements that conflict with the supporting facts presented in the passage. However, they may seem to. Answer choices that seem to make statements that contradict the statements made in the passage are trap choices that seem to be weakeners but do not truly weaken the argument.

Now, let's consider choice A.

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

Hmm. This choice seems to contradict the statement made in the passage. It seems to indicate that the remaining employees will be less productive rather than more productive if some employees are laid off. It doesn't really though. A is a trap choice.

Choice A is actually not a comparison of the productivity of employees before and after the layoffs. It is only a comparison between the productivity of employees during regular hours and the productivity of employees during overtime hours.

The passage makes clear that the employees will work more efficiently if some are laid off. All A indicates is that the remaining employees wouldn't work as productively during overtime hours as they would during regular hours. It could still be the case that they would work more efficiently during regular hour AND during overtime hours than they would without the layoffs. So, the truth is that A does not weaken the argument at all.

Now let's consider B.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.


While the structure of the passage is a little weak, the first sentence of the passage seems to be the conclusion. If the first sentence is the conclusion, then B weakens the conclusion, because B indicates that, even if the remaining employees were to work more efficiently, corporations simply won't be able to operate effectively if they lay off employees, and so drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs would not bolster corporate profits and the national economy but, rather, result in a reduction of corporate profits.

So, the correct answer is B.
_________________

Marty Murray
GMAT Coach
m.w.murray@hotmail.com
http://infinitemindprep.com

GMAT Club Bot
Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta &nbs [#permalink] 05 Nov 2018, 07:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.