Many corporations have begun decorating their halls with motivational posters in hopes of boosting their employees’ motivation to work productively. However, almost all employees at these corporations are already motivated to work productively. So these corporations’ use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument:
(A) fails to consider whether
corporations that do not currently use motivational posters would increase their employees’ motivation to work productively if they began using the posters - WRONG. Not the concern.
(B) takes for granted that, with respect to their employees’ motivation to work productively, corporations that decorate their halls with motivational posters are
representative of corporations in general - WRONG. Corporation's representation is irrelevant.
(C) fails to consider that even if motivational posters do not have one particular beneficial effect for corporations, they may have
similar effects that are equally beneficial - WRONG. 2nd best for me. Other benefits are again a distraction. The desired result only matters.
(D) does not adequately address the possibility that employee productivity is strongly affected by
factors other than employees’ motivation to work productively - WRONG. Other factors don't matter since they are not considered in the conclusion.
(E) fails to consider that even if employees are already motivated to work productively, motivational posters
may increase that motivation - CORRECT.
C and E are contenders but E wins here.
Answer E.