Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta

Official explanation:

The conclusion in this argument is in the first sentence: reducing employees will increase profits and improve the economy in general. The author then explains how this will happen. Choice (B) undermines this line of thinking by pointing out that what the author suggests is wrong.

Source : Got it in one of the kaplan tests.

B is best.

if they are already at their minimum, they wont be able to cut costs by a reduction in the workforce.

Go to "B" Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

The correct answer is B. The official explanation is here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/economist-dr ... tml#p19303

Hope it helps.

AjiteshArun , Bunuel , abhimahna , MartyMurray

I am still having trouble eliminating A.

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

How does this not cast a doubt on the conclusion. The additional hours won't be as productive as they could have been. But there will be an increase in productivity no matter how small. That's one part. But not to mention our labour force is also getting downsized. Can't this mean that resultant productivity is getting reduced. Wouldn't then the choice be a classic weakener.

Please help. Also provide a reason why B is better than A

The wording of A is not as clear as it could be. So, we have to carefully look at both A and the argument to see why A does not really weaken the argument.

The argument states the following as fact:

The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently

In a well written Weaken question, the answer choices will not make statements that conflict with the supporting facts presented in the passage. However, they may seem to. Answer choices that seem to make statements that contradict the statements made in the passage are trap choices that seem to be weakeners but do not truly weaken the argument.

Now, let's consider choice A.

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

Hmm. This choice seems to contradict the statement made in the passage. It seems to indicate that the remaining employees will be less productive rather than more productive if some employees are laid off. It doesn't really though. A is a trap choice.

Choice A is actually not a comparison of the productivity of employees before and after the layoffs. It is only a comparison between the productivity of employees during regular hours and the productivity of employees during overtime hours.

The passage makes clear that the employees will work more efficiently if some are laid off. All A indicates is that the remaining employees wouldn't work as productively during overtime hours as they would during regular hours. It could still be the case that they would work more efficiently during regular hour AND during overtime hours than they would without the layoffs. So, the truth is that A does not weaken the argument at all.

Now let's consider B.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.


While the structure of the passage is a little weak, the first sentence of the passage seems to be the conclusion. If the first sentence is the conclusion, then B weakens the conclusion, because B indicates that, even if the remaining employees were to work more efficiently, corporations simply won't be able to operate effectively if they lay off employees, and so drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs would not bolster corporate profits and the national economy but, rather, result in a reduction of corporate profits.

So, the correct answer is B.

(B) is correct, as it shows how the author’s plan would not work: if corporations already have the minimum number of employees they need, then getting rid of employees would take away that necessity, and the company wouldn't actually operate effectively.

(A) is an irrelevant comparison. Even if the overtime hours will be less efficient than the non-overtime hours, the regular hours could remain as productive as usual. Then, the overtime (even if it's not quite as productive) would still provide additional hours and extra productivity.

(C) brings in irrelevant information, that the economy will substantially improve without employee reductions. This doesn't weaken the argument, as it's possible that this author's recommendation would improve the economy more quickly and/or substantially than if no action were taken.

(D) simply provides a statistical result of reducing staff levels, and doesn't address the economist's conclusion.

(E) focuses on the impact on the people who lost their jobs and got new ones. The fact that these new jobs would pay less than the previous jobs is bad for these individuals, but does nothing to address whether the plan will work. This is incorrect.

TAKEAWAY: If an author thinks a particular plan will lead to success, weaken it by showing that the terms of the plan might not lead to the expected result.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.