Adi93 wrote:
Economist: Every business strives to increase its productivity, for this increases profits for the owners and the likelihood that the business will survive. But not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole. Often, attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees, which clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the economist’s argument?
(A) If an action taken to secure the survival of a business fails to enhance the welfare of the business’s employees, that action cannot be good for the business as a whole.-- a bit specific
(B) Some measures taken by a business to increase productivity fail to be beneficial to the business as a whole. -- looks good and encapsulates the Crux of the argument
(C) Only if the employees of a business are also its owners will the interests of the employees and owners coincide, enabling measures that will be beneficial to the business as a whole.-- out of scope
(D) There is no business that does not make efforts to increase its productivity.-- out of scope
(E) Decreasing the number of employees in a business undermines the sense of security of retained employees.-- irrelevant
B is the Answer
Can we eliminate A because the argument talks about increasing productivity and the option talks about survival of business? I wanted to confirm if my thought process is correct.