Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its

I went for C. It says that plan does not do anything about carbon reduction since most people do not drive to work.

E - 'Some' is not strong enough to weaken the argument

i rejected e because of some employees

Flimco Solutions has instituted a bold plan to dramatically reduce its "carbon footprint," that is, the amount of nonrenewable energy it expends, by allowing two-thirds of its Salemville workforce to work from home up to 24 hours per week. By allowing its employees this telecommuting option, the company estimates that its carbon emissions will be significantly reduced because workers will not have to drive back and forth between theirhomes and Flimco headquarters.

Which of the following, if true, would most threaten the success of Flimco's plan?


(A) Most of the employees drive fairly late-model cars, many of which attain higher-than-average gasoline mileage.
This doesn't help explain why the plan will fail. The employee cars will still use gasoline to drive to work.

(B) Some employees will need special accommodations in order to be able to do their jobs efficiently from their homes.
Concerns regarding employee efficiency at home doesn't help the argument.

(C) A majority of Flimco's employees travel to and from work on a light-rail system that runs every 15 minutes, regardless of ridership.
Alright, something that might help us explain why the plan might not pan out as thought of. If majority of the employees travel through public transport and don't use personal cars for their everyday commute, then making people work from either home or office might not significantly reduce the company's carbon footprint. Keep.

(D) Flimco Corporation offered a similar option to its workers but many of them chose not to telecommute.
Flimco Corporation & Flimco Solutions are two different companies. Our only focus of this argument is Flimco Solutions. Adding another company's plan doesn't help the argument.

(E) Some of Flimco's workers live in homes that are not energy efficient, and would expend more nonrenewable energy maintaining the climate in their homes telecommuting than they would if they left their residences to work elsewhere.
E has a number of issues with it.
1. Some of Flimco's workers: Even if some workers are inefficient in saving energy at home, many other employees might be. Doesn't weaken the argument.
2. What workers do at home is not a concern of this argument. The argument focuses on Flimco's carbon footprint as whole, contributed by its employees with regards to their work settings & not in their personal settings.
3. "than they would if they left their residences to work elsewhere": Leaving their residence for work elsewhere is not our concern. We're focused only on their commute back and forth to work.

Answer is C

@GmatNinja,@Sajjad1994 and other respected Moderators

I would like to point out that there is significant confusion between C and E in this que.
E should be a winner as C says Majority travel by train not expending any or some Carbon fuel,yet even if 1 person is not travelling by that and travelling by a less efficient transport - by making them not travel the company will eventually be reducing the net fuel consumption

EG - total employees - 100
by train - 99 - fuel used - 0
by car - 1 - fuel used - x amount
if all are made to sit home the fuel consumption reduces by X

Option E - though not perfect as some is ambiguous word which ranges from 1 to the whole lot of employees - it is still better

Poor Question.
First things first, Question stem simplification.
Filmco wanted to reduce its carbon emissions. So WFH is given to its employees, reducing the carbon footprint of personal commute SIGNIFICANTLY.
Now, mostly C and E competes.
C says majority of employees did commute through light rail. What is the majority? Assume 51%, then the rest 49% did commute by car, taxi or others. Now, will giving the salemville employees WFH reduce the carbon footprint significantly? Definitely yes! It is not majority though , but 49% is SIGNIFICANT.
On the other hand, E says that employees increase their carbon footprint. If we want to assume that this carbon footprint is not the one intended by the company, then no choice fits in.
Please let me know whether there is a flaw in my reasoning!

Posted from my mobile device

What does "threaten the success " mean?

I was thinking the question meant the plan would do more harm than good.

I was doubtful of the option E because of the word "some" but I still chose it because E was causing more harm if the plan is implemented.

But C was simply failing to meet the goal of the plan.

Was I thinking too much?