One way in which companies can increase their productivity is by makin

First thing to do in order to evaluate an argument try to find events that might be attacked in the argument. In this particular example we have the following:

Telecommunication, waste of time, car jams, video conferences, emails.

Possible problem: waste of time

Possible solution: telecommunication => work from home

The question asked is going to evaluate only these events or something directly connected with them. Any evaluation out of scope is just irrelevant.

Let's see the answer choices.

(A) Whether the cost of telecommuting will more than offset the increased productivity that comes about from its use.

First, we see that it touches one of the events, so we apply the variance test*. If the telecommunicating cost will be more than the increased productivity it is irrelevant to ask the employees work from home. If its cost does not dismiss the productivity than the company may launch the campaign.

(B) Whether the day to day work of most companies involves physical interaction amongst their employees.

Physical interaction. Not an event. But what if there is an urgent need of physical interactions among each other. Let's say the company requires employees to test the products and it is possible to do properly if only more than one employee is included. Obviously for this the employee should still attend the office/ workshop. If there are no physical interactions required in the job the remote work becomes more possible.

(C) Whether a large part of the work of an average employee can be conducted using telecommuting services.

Event mentioned => variance test. Obviously works. Out

(D) Whether the use of telecommuting service will lead to increased revenues for the companies adopting this service.

Event mentioned. Variance test. The use of telecommunication leads to increased revenue. Ok good. The use of telecommunication does not lead to increased revenue. In order this to weaken the argument we should assume that company tries to boost its revenue parallel to the employees' productivity. We have no grounds to assume this so keep it.

(E) Whether the general traffic situation is likely to dramatically improve in the future.

Traffic is a mentioned event. Variance test. If the traffic situation is improved dramatically one of the two premises is eliminated and this might stop the company of using its new strategy. Pay attention that we do not know the weight of a premise, so we cannot guess that the argument will still work with only one premise. If the traffic is not going to be improved in the future this will encourage the company to retain its strategy.

So we have one possible answer, which is D.


Variance test* (C CriticalBible) is the question asked based on the evaluative answer choice. The question should have a yes/no answers only. If it is impossible to ask such a question based on the answer, eliminate the answer. If it has the answers one should strengthen the argument and the other one weaken it. Pay attention that even a minute help or destruction is considered valid.

How option C is relevant in evaluating the argument? Is an average employee represents most employees at different hierarchies? What If large part of the work of most employees can be conducted in office only?

Could someone please clarify?

The question asks for a clue that is useful. Whether it is useful by 1% or by 100% we consider it useful.

If we know that the majority of the employees (in gmat this means > 50%) can work at home effectively, we may assume that the company may carry on the plan. However, if the majority cannot work remotely, there might be a worse situation. The assumptions are made based on the premises, and there are no extra assumptions made to evaluate the argument based on the answer variant.

Official Explanation

Answer: D

Let’s look at each of the options and check whether it is relevant to the argument.

(A) Relevant. If there is no cost benefit of telecommuting, then companies may not want to make use of it.

(B) Relevant. If employees’ work requires physical interaction then telecommuting may not make sense.

(C) Relevant. If most of an employees’ work entails coming to the office then it may not make sense to use telecommuting.

(D) Irrelevant. Even if the revenues remain the same, the cost could go down because of telecommuting leading to increased profits from the same revenue base. So it does not matter whether the revenues go up or not.

(E) Relevant. If the traffic situation improves dramatically in the future, then it might take care of the problem associated with coming to work.

While I did get the answer right, my line of thought was different from the reasoning in the official explanation.

To me, it seems that the conclusion / crux is an increase in productivity, whereas the official explanation also considers profitability. I could not find anything in the question stem (keeping aside practical knowledge) to direct the conclusion towards productivity. Could you please help make that connection?

With productivity only in mind, I ended up having to choose between A and D. While I could see why D will not affect the argument, I retained A because the increased productivity is offset - but isn't the question limited to increasing productivity only (not the consequences or other externalities)?