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

 It is currently 05 Dec 2019, 11:00

### 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

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

# Forcing businesses to furnish employees with paid leave for family

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1714

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2018, 18:55
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

96% (01:42) correct 4% (02:11) wrong based on 85 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Forcing businesses to furnish employees with paid leave for family concerns, such as paternity leave or leave to care for a sick child, is a terrible idea. If a business allows employees to take this time off, the workers will take advantage of the privilege and come to work as little as possible. This will destroy productivity and workplace morale.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) European countries guarantee employees generous family leave and paid vacation time, but the European standard of living is slightly below that of the United States.

(B) Most male workers refuse to take paternity leave even though it is allowed under federal law and their employers encourage it; they fear they may anger co-workers and harm their chances for promotion if they take time off for what is still seen as a frivolous reason.

(C) The FMLA requires employers to grant employees 12 weeks a year of unpaid leave for family purposes; although employers save money because the leave is unpaid, they often must spend money to find a replacement for the employee who takes time off.

(D) In some workplaces, the loss of a single employee at a busy time of year can be devastating, even if that employee plans to return after a few weeks; allowing family leave can overwhelm the employees who stay on the job.

(E) Allowing employees to take leave for family matters reduces absentee-ism, improves morale, and surprisingly increases productivity because the employees who are granted leave tend to work much harder and more efficiently when they come back to work.

_________________
Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Director
Joined: 20 Feb 2015
Posts: 737
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Re: Forcing businesses to furnish employees with paid leave for family  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2018, 03:13
aragonn wrote:
Forcing businesses to furnish employees with paid leave for family concerns, such as paternity leave or leave to care for a sick child, is a terrible idea. If a business allows employees to take this time off, the workers will take advantage of the privilege and come to work as little as possible. This will destroy productivity and workplace morale.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) European countries guarantee employees generous family leave and paid vacation time, but the European standard of living is slightly below that of the United States.

(B) Most male workers refuse to take paternity leave even though it is allowed under federal law and their employers encourage it; they fear they may anger co-workers and harm their chances for promotion if they take time off for what is still seen as a frivolous reason.

(C) The FMLA requires employers to grant employees 12 weeks a year of unpaid leave for family purposes; although employers save money because the leave is unpaid, they often must spend money to find a replacement for the employee who takes time off.

(D) In some workplaces, the loss of a single employee at a busy time of year can be devastating, even if that employee plans to return after a few weeks; allowing family leave can overwhelm the employees who stay on the job.

(E) Allowing employees to take leave for family matters reduces absentee-ism, improves morale, and surprisingly increases productivity because the employees who are granted leave tend to work much harder and more efficiently when they come back to work.

straightforward E
According to the author paid leave for family concerns will destroy productivity and workplace morale.

E gives us a counter.
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 59561
Re: Forcing businesses to furnish employees with paid leave for family  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Feb 2019, 03:39
aragonn wrote:
Forcing businesses to furnish employees with paid leave for family concerns, such as paternity leave or leave to care for a sick child, is a terrible idea. If a business allows employees to take this time off, the workers will take advantage of the privilege and come to work as little as possible. This will destroy productivity and workplace morale.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) European countries guarantee employees generous family leave and paid vacation time, but the European standard of living is slightly below that of the United States.

(B) Most male workers refuse to take paternity leave even though it is allowed under federal law and their employers encourage it; they fear they may anger co-workers and harm their chances for promotion if they take time off for what is still seen as a frivolous reason.

(C) The FMLA requires employers to grant employees 12 weeks a year of unpaid leave for family purposes; although employers save money because the leave is unpaid, they often must spend money to find a replacement for the employee who takes time off.

(D) In some workplaces, the loss of a single employee at a busy time of year can be devastating, even if that employee plans to return after a few weeks; allowing family leave can overwhelm the employees who stay on the job.

(E) Allowing employees to take leave for family matters reduces absentee-ism, improves morale, and surprisingly increases productivity because the employees who are granted leave tend to work much harder and more efficiently when they come back to work.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

E. Allowing employees to take leave for family matters reduces absenteeism, improves morale, and surprisingly increases productivity because the employees who are granted leave tend to work much harder and more efficiently when they come back to work.

To weaken the argument, look for an answer showing that allowing family leave doesn’t hurt productivity or perhaps even helps it. Choice (A) doesn’t affect the argument because standard of living isn’t an issue, and it doesn’t mention workplace productivity. Choice (B) could arguably weaken the argument because it provides evidence that workers may not abuse the privilege of leave — fathers aren’t taking family leave at all, which weakens the conclusion that workers would work less if they had leave. On the other hand, if taking paternity leave angers co-workers, that strengthens the conclusion that family leave hurts workplace morale, so this isn’t the best answer. Choice (C) strengthens the argument by showing that FMLA leave costs the employer money. Choice (D) also strengthens the argument by illustrating the destruction caused by one employee leaving for a while. Choice (E) weakens the argument. If employers are worried about productivity and morale, this choice says that allowing leave actually increases productivity and morale. Choice (E) is the right answer.
Re: Forcing businesses to furnish employees with paid leave for family   [#permalink] 15 Feb 2019, 03:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by