Managers at the Empresa corporation plan to implement a new policy

Question

Managers at the Empresa corporation plan to implement a new policy of filling permanent positions in the company only with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions. The managers reason that this policy will gradually improve average employee productivity, because workers who proved less productive in the temporary positions will not be hired for the permanent positions.

Which of the following, if true, would present the most serious challenge for the managers' plan

A. Few employees currently in permanent positions at Empresa previously held temporary positions there
B. Most of Empresa's productive temporary workers would be more motivated to be highly productive if they held permanent positions.
C. Empresa has fewer available permanent positions than it has productive workers currently in temporary positions.
D. Few of the likely applicants for permanent positions at Empresa who are likely to be highly productive workers would have worked in temporary positions
E. Managers at Empresa have been generally unsuccessful at gauging the likely productivity of job applicants before hiring them

GMATCoachBen · Accepted Answer

Vaishvii  Important question! It's essential to  focus on finding a challenge with the EXACT plan in the passage , which is a prediction about a future outcome of a certain action. We are not looking for just any "challenge"; it must connect to the future goal and action specified by the plan.

In general, on a "Plan" question, we want to make sure we understand the Goal and the Action:

Goal: "gradually improve average employee productivity"

Action: "a new policy of filling permanent positions in the company only with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions. ...workers who proved less productive in the temporary positions will not be hired for the permanent positions."

In summary, the plan is to test out the workers first, and make them prove themselves, before promoting them from temporary positions to permanent positions.

Therefore, E is actually a strengthener for this plan, and an  Opposite trap . E is a challenge with how things have been done in the  past  — managers have been unsuccessful at predicting a worker's productivity " before  hiring them", so this plan of making the workers prove themselves in a temporary position makes a lot of sense as a  future  improvement.

In general, it's helpful to be aware of tenses and timelines.

Please let me know if this helps or if you have further questions!

gmatophobia · Answer

Plan  : Fill permanent positions in the company only with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions

Goal  : Improve average employee productivity

Supported Reasoning  : Workers who proved less productive in the temporary positions will not be hired for the permanent positions

Hence, the author of the argument assumes that most productive employees are willing to join the company in temporary positions instead of looking out for only permanent roles.

Let's evaluate the options:

A. Few employees currently in permanent positions at Empresa previously held temporary positions there

Firstly we don't know whether the employees that we are referring to are productive. The goal is to improve average employee productivity, hence this plan doesn't contribute much either to support or weaken the goal. Therefore, we can eliminate this option.

B. Most of Empresa's productive temporary workers would be more motivated to be highly productive if they held permanent positions.

This strengthens the manager's argument. If the productive temporary workers would be more motivated to be highly productive if they held permanent positions, moving them to permanent roles will improve average employee productivity. However, we have to weaken the argument. Eliminate this option.

C. Empresa has fewer available permanent positions than it has productive workers currently in temporary positions.

This does not directly challenge the plan. All we know is that the number of vacancies is fewer than the number of productive workers currently in temporary positions. Hence, we can eliminate this option.

D. Few of the likely applicants for permanent positions at Empresa who are likely to be highly productive workers would have worked in temporary positions

This challenges the manager's assumptions that they made while devising the plan. If few of the likely applicants who are likely to be highly productive workers are working in temporary positions at Empresa, the manager's plan may likely fail. This is because the managers' plan relies on the assumption that the company's temporary workers are a better pool of potential candidates for permanent positions than the candidates in the job market. However, if only a few of them worked in temporary positions, the manager is likely missing out on a better pool of candidates.

Hence, we can keep this option.

E. Managers at Empresa have been generally unsuccessful at gauging the likely productivity of job applicants before hiring them

This option states that managers at Empresa have been generally unsuccessful at gauging the likely productivity of job applicants before hiring them, but this does not necessarily mean that they would be unable to identify productive temporary workers who could be promoted to permanent positions after they are hired in the temporary positons. Hence, we can eliminate this option.

Option D

Vaishvii · Answer

GMATNinja   MartyMurray  what is the issue with E? If the managers are not good at hiring shouldn't that be a challenge? Please help, thanks!

Vasavan · Answer

Hi, I understand the reasoning behind eliminating E. But I am not sure how D can act as a weakener. D says " Few of the likely applicants for permanent positions at Empresa who are likely to be highly productive workers would have worked in temporary positions ". The end goal is to increase average productivity. So, even if only few people with high productivity in temporary roles exist, as long as these people are hired, it is enough to increase the average employee productivity. Hence, I did not consider this to be a weakener. Is my understanding wrong?  GMATCoachBen   GMATNinja   MartyMurray   KarishmaB

MartyMurray · Answer

Here's the goal of the plan:

gradually improve average employee productivity

Here's how they plan to achieve that goal:

filling permanent positions in the company only with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions

That plan appears to make sense, but what could go wrong?

Let's consider choice (D):

D. Few of the likely applicants for permanent positions at Empresa who are likely to be highly productive workers would have worked in temporary positions

As you suggested, what (D) says does not mean that hiring temporary workers to fill full-time positions could not possibly serve to increase average productivity.

At the same time, there is an issue, and we can see what this issue is by noticing that the plan is to fill positions "ONLY with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions."

If they hire only people who have worked in temporary positions and "Few of the likely applicants for permanent positions at Empresa who are likely to be highly productive workers would have worked in temporary positions," then there's a good chance the plan will not work because there simply won't be that enough highly productive workers to hire.

In such a case, they may not have a large enough pool to hire from, and if they stick with the plan and do hire enough people from temporary positions, they won't increase average productivity because few of the people they hire will be highly productive.

So, we see that (D) indicates that there's a good chance the plan won't work.

KarishmaB · Answer

Plan  : Fill permanent positions in the company only with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions (so the company knows their productivity)

Aim of the Plan  : improve average employee productivity

What would be a problem to this plan? Which option is likely to derail the plan?

A. Few employees currently in permanent positions at Empresa previously held temporary positions there

"Few" means almost none. So this tells us that people in current permanent positions did not hold temporary positions before. It doesn't matter. We are creating this plan for future permanent positions. Whether the past positions were filled by adhering to this plan is irrelevant. We are where we are. Point is - where are we going in the future?

B. Most of Empresa's productive temporary workers would be more motivated to be highly productive if they held permanent positions.
  
This option talks about the productive temporary workers. The plan already plans to hire them to permanent positions. If they will be even more productive in permanent positions, it is better for the plan.

C. Empresa has fewer available permanent positions than it has productive workers currently in temporary positions.

Irrelevant. Empresa will get its choice of the most productive workers. Good for the plan.

D. Few of the likely applicants for permanent positions at Empresa who are likely to be highly productive workers would have worked in temporary positions
  
 Vasavan

"Few" means almost none. So almost none of the likely applicants for permanent positions would have worked in temporary positions. Say the kind of skill and experience required for the permanent positions at Empresa cannot be found among temporary workers. Those likely to be suitable applicants and likely to be highly productive would not have worked in temp positions. Then it doesn't look like our plan will work.

E. Managers at Empresa have been generally unsuccessful at gauging the likely productivity of job applicants before hiring them
  
Looks like this could be the reason the plan came into being. Managers have not been successful at gauging the likely productivity of job applicants. Hence, they plan to first hire in temporary roles and then once they are in a position to gauge productivity, then permanent roles are given. 
It does not reflect on whether the plan will be successful or not. 
 
Answer (D)

Raman109 · Answer

Managers at the Empresa corporation plan to implement a new policy of filling permanent positions in the company only with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions. - Plan. "filling permanent positions in the company only with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions"

The managers reason that this policy will gradually improve average employee productivity, because workers who proved less productive in the temporary positions will not be hired for the permanent positions. - Goal: will gradually improve average employee productivity.

The goal is to improve the overall productivity. How, by taking highly productive from temp work force. But how about if the most productive people don't prefer to be in the Temp workforce? Then in reality they are hiring average/low productivity people in the temp workforce and only hire the most productive from those to permanent. But this overall process may actually lower the productivity because the company is missing on the most productive workers in the first place.

Which of the following, if true, would present the most serious challenge for the managers' plan

A. Few employees currently in permanent positions at Empresa previously held temporary positions there - irrelevant.

B. Most of Empresa's productive temporary workers would be more motivated to be highly productive if they held permanent positions. - strengthens the plan.

C. Empresa has fewer available permanent positions than it has productive workers currently in temporary positions. - strengthens at best.

D. Few of the likely applicants for permanent positions at Empresa who are likely to be highly productive workers would have worked in temporary positions - Yes.

E. Managers at Empresa have been generally unsuccessful at gauging the likely productivity of job applicants before hiring them - strengthens the plan.

saepeest · Answer

The goal of the manager is to increase productivity of the employees not to select better candidate so how your reasoning for option d is right?

guddo · Answer

The goal is indeed to increase employee productivity. But hiring is the method by which the managers expect to achieve that goal.

So candidate quality matters because today’s permanent-position candidates become tomorrow’s permanent employees. If the policy excludes many applicants who would be highly productive, then the company may end up with a less productive permanent workforce than it otherwise could have had.

That is why D is relevant. It does not change the goa, it attacks the plan’s ability to reach that goal by showing that the plan may block many  highly productive workers  from being hired into  permanent positions .

egmat · Answer

Hi saepeest,

You've drawn a line between two things that are actually the same thing. Let me connect them.

Average employee productivity is just a measure of  who  is sitting in the permanent seats.  The only way the plan raises average productivity is by putting  more productive people  into those seats. So "improve productivity" and "get the more productive people into the jobs" aren't separate goals - one is achieved  through  the other. Candidate quality is the mechanism.

Now look at the exact wording of the plan: fill permanent positions  "only with people who have already worked for the company in temporary positions."  That word  only  is the trap door.

Here's what D does to it:

- D says  few  of the likely-highly-productive applicants would ever have worked as temps.
- But the plan will hire  only  from the temp pool.
- So the plan systematically  locks out  exactly the people who would have raised productivity the most.

The company ends up filling seats from a pool that is missing its best candidates - and average productivity does  not  improve the way the managers predicted. That's why D is a genuine challenge to  this  plan, not just a comment about hiring.

Turn one word to feel it: 
- If the plan said fill positions " preferably " from temp workers (not "only"), would D still hurt? Much less - the managers could still reach outside for the top people.
- It's the word  only  that lets D bite: it forces the company into a pool that lacks the highly productive candidates.

So your instinct that the goal is productivity is right - the key is seeing that productivity rises  only  if the good people are actually reachable, and D shows the plan's "only" rule makes them unreachable.

Answer: D

Adit_ · Answer

Isn't E actually irrelevant? Because the final conclusion concludes by saying that "less productive members will not be hired". So them having the ability or not in any sense doesn't matter right? As the premise is to be taken as it is.

egmat · Answer

Hi Adit_,

Good instinct: you've correctly landed on the fact that  E  is not the answer. But let's tighten  why , because the reason you gave will trip you up on the next "plan" question.

You're treating the words  "workers who proved less productive in the temporary positions will not be hired"  as a locked premise, so you concluded that the managers' skill at judging people is beside the point. Here's the key: that phrase isn't about  gauging  anyone. It says the temps  proved  their productivity - i.e., the managers  observed  actual on-the-job performance during the temporary stint. No prediction required.

Now read  E  again, watching the exact words:

"...unsuccessful at gauging the likely productivity of job applicants  before hiring them ."

That's a completely different moment in time.  E  is about predicting productivity  up front , before anyone works. The plan deliberately sidesteps that weakness by letting people prove themselves first, then keeping the good ones.

So  E  doesn't sit in neutral "irrelevant" territory - it actually leans the  other way : being bad at up-front prediction is precisely  why  a "let them prove it as temps first" policy makes sense. That's the opposite-trap the experts above flagged. Calling it "irrelevant" gets you to the right elimination, but the cleaner read is:  E supports the plan.

Turn one word to feel it:

- E as written: bad at gauging  before hiring  - the plan fixes this - supports.
- If E instead said managers are bad at judging productivity  even after watching temps work  -  now  the plan's whole mechanism breaks, and it would genuinely challenge the plan.

Same sentence, one time-word changed, opposite effect. That's the skill to build here - track  when  each claim applies before deciding it's irrelevant.

Answer: D

Managers at the Empresa corporation plan to implement a new policy

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Managers at the Empresa corporation plan to implement a new policy

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards