­How might career advancement be described as potentially linked to

­
Official Explanation from the DI Guide:

Inference

(1) (1) describes how working long hours and overtime is potentially linked to a type of growth (in productivity) and also to a type of decline (in well-being) as well as to career advancement. That is, (1) directly describes a way that career advancement is potentially linked to both growth and decline, via working long hours and overtime. Since (1) itself is an answer to the question, it is sufficient to answer it; SUFFICIENT.

(2) (2) says nothing about growth or career advancement. Thus, (2) alone doesn’t tell us how career advancement might be described as potentially linked to both growth and decline. NOT sufficient.

The correct answer is A; statement 1 alone is sufficient.­

Hi, just wanted to understand if this reasoning makes sense for (1)

Two links have been created: -
1. Working long hours and career advancement (Growth)
2. Working long hours and decline in physical & mental well being (Decline)

No direct link has been created between CA and Decline. The question asks for a possibility, not a confirmed answer, is that the reason that (1) suffices?

Yes, statement (1) suffices because the question asks for a "potential" link between career advancement and both growth and decline (How might career advancement be described as potentially linked to both growth and decline?). (1) highlights that potential link (notice the word "may" there): working long hours is linked to career advancement and higher productivity (growth) and is also linked to a decline in well-being (decline).

this question is asking why career advancement CAN be described as potentially linked to decline and growht at the same time. THE POINT HERE IS THAT we have the "potentially" --> this means that we have to find the potential reasons why CAREER ADVANCEMENT is linked to both growth and decline.

(1) tells us that career advancement might be CAUSED by working long hours AND working long hours ALSO LEADS TO physical and mental health decline. thus it is telling us that long hours are the cause of
A POSITIVE EFFECT --> carreer advancement
and at the same time of
NEGATIVE EFFECT --> decline in mental and physical health

so the reason why carreer advancement is often linked to both growht and decline is that you must work long hour to achieve advancements in career.

(2) it is telling us that mantainin a good work life balance is good for the quality of life, but it is NOT telling us anything about the reason why career advancement is described as both growth and decline

Option 1 more directly links career advancement to both growth and decline, explicitly showing how increased work hours (a factor in career growth) can also cause a decline in well-being. It is the most comprehensive in addressing the potential dual impact of career advancement on both professional and personal aspects.
Option 2, while it recognizes the importance of avoiding decline, focuses more on preventing decline through balance, rather than explaining the simultaneous potential for both growth and decline.

Therefore, Option 1 provides a clearer, more direct link between both career advancement (growth) and decline.

but cant not working long hours also result in career advancement?

1 talks about may lead to career advancement

These recent DI questions are challenging my whole belief system developed wrt Critical reasoning approach.

Option 1 gives following relations
working long hours >>> career advancement (may)
working long hours >>> decline with well being (likely)

Which states working hours (A) is correlated/linked with career advancement(B) and well being (C) respectively

How sure can we be that career advancement is linked with decline. There can be a probability that A may not cause B, but likely cause C.

What am I missing here.

Thanks for help in advance.
Bunuel

You're missing that the question asks whether career advancement might be potentially linked to both growth and decline. Since long hours may lead to advancement and are likely to cause decline, that’s enough to establish a potential link between career advancement and decline. We don’t need a direct or certain causal chain.