Thanks for the reply.
But how can we be certain that the manager has this in mind only? That is the confusion.
Just because the numbers are matching?
The way I approached choice B was- the statement implied that the average absenteeism will continue (Since the statement says- Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday. So it is very logical that out of 4750- 5% will be absent on any given day.) Thus, eliminated it.
Thus B has no link to the answer at all.
Also, will the answer change if the statement said that the manager decided to reduce say 2% or 10% then?
chetan2u wrote:
hbkharsh wrote:
Hey, thanks for the OA.
But I have confusion here.
B will be the answer if the manager's idea was that if 250 employees are laid off then there will be no absenteeism but why are we expecting that is what his plan was? I can't follow the logic here. No where it says that he is assuming after laying off people, there will be no absenteeism.
Can anyone help with this? Thanks
Yes, that is exactly what the manager has in his mind.
Why does manager agree to reduce exactly by 5%?
The manager believes inspite of this 5% reduction, the services are in time. So if he reduces the strength by 5%, the work will not get affected.
But, that 5% is average, and is likely to continue with the reduced strength.
So, we know that 4750 out of 5000 are sufficient to ensure uninterrupted services. But if we make strength as 4750, and with 5% as absenteeism, we have the available strength as ~ 4750-230 or 4520. But will 4520 be sufficient is a question mark as we just know 4750 is sufficient.