this one was devilish ...
In a study of office workers at a corporation, Australian researchers found that, on average, those who spent up to 20 percent of their work day browsing the Internet for purposes that were not work-related were 9 percent more productive per hour of actual work than those who completely abstained from going online at work. The researchers concluded that frequent work breaks are rejuvenating and improve concentration, thereby increasing productivity.
notice the leap between premises and conclusion. author must be assuming a sort of association between non-work related browsing and frequent breaks, either that these are the same or they are positively correlated. Which of the following pieces of information about the workers studied would, if true, most strengthen the researchers’ argument?
A. Those who were the most productive had jobs that required them to use the Internet frequently for work-related purposes. -
- if anything this weakens B. Those who took work breaks to browse the Internet were more productive than those who took equally frequent breaks away from the computer. --
- Group 1 = equally frequent breaks with browsing
- Group 2 = equally frequent breaks without browsing
If Group 1 still performs better, then the extra productivity cannot be explained by frequent breaks, because both groups already have that.C. Those who abstained from going online during their work day generally took far fewer work breaks than the other workers.
--
says: the people who never browsed also took far fewer breaks.
That helps a lot.
Why? Because now it looks like this:- Browsers = more breaks
- Non-browsers = fewer breaks
--- fits correlation pattern
D. Those who were the most productive relative to their colleagues tended to take longer work breaks than the least productive of their colleagues.
-- length <> frequentE. Those who spent more than 20 percent of their work day online were less productive, on average, than those who abstained from going online. --
seems out of bounds