According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who

Hi

In an assumption based question, the premise(s) and conclusion have a causal relationship. In other words, we should be able to point out X --> Y, which, in words, is that "X causes Y" or "X, therefore Y". The final decision that is arrived at is the conclusion, and the fact(s) which is/are taken into account to arrive at that conclusion is/are the premise(s). The conclusion is often (though not always) marked by words such as "therefore", "hence", "thus" etc. The premise(s) can be identified by asking the question "why" to the conclusion.

In this question, the final decision that is arrived at, is: "...secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices". This is the conclusion. Now, if we ask "why", or, "in what basis" to the conclusion, the following facts are relevant:

i) According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who have an enclosed office may smoke at their desks.
ii) Virtually all employees with enclosed offices are at the professional level, and virtually all secretarial employees lack enclosed offices.

These, therefore, are the relevant premises.

Hope this clarifies.

According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who have an enclosed office may smoke at their desks. Virtually all employees with enclosed offices are at the professional level, and virtually all secretarial employees lack enclosed offices. Therefore, secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.

Which of the following is an assumption that enables the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

(A) Employees at the professional level who do not smoke should keep their enclosed offices. X

This weakens the argument…less enclosed offices available…how would secretarial employees get a desk?

(B) Employees with enclosed offices should not smoke at their desks, even though the new regulations permit them to do so. X

We don’t need to be in the business of making normative claims about what employees should and should not do. Out.

(C) Employees at the secretarial level should be allowed to smoke at their desks, even if they do not have enclosed offices. X

Runs contra to the premise. Not allowed on GMAT. Out.

(D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level.

Correct. Suppose all employees who smoke did not have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to smoke…then the argument which is predicated on equality is weakened.

(E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all employees who do not smoke. X

Equal protection from hazards for non-smokers is beyond the focus.

(A) Employees at the professional level who do not smoke should keep their enclosed offices. Wrong nothing about this.

(B) Employees with enclosed offices should not smoke at their desks, even though the new regulations permit them to do so. Wrong opposite to argument

(C) Employees at the secretarial level should be allowed to smoke at their desks, even if they do not have enclosed offices. Wrong as against the regulation

(D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level. Correct

(E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all employees who do not smoke. Wrong no mention

Hence, OA is (D).

Conclusion: Secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.
Why does author thinks like that?
--May be author wants others (Non Smokers) to be safe....but did author mentioned that or did he mentioned any intension for the same? no!....we don't know why the regulations were placed on the first place.....may be they are placed to stop people from smoking...or may be to save non smokers from the smoke exhaled by the smokers......hmm so what can be the reason? why did author conclude the above statement?

--It's given that the New regulation allows employees to smoke in enclosed cabin only!...and since professionals have cabins, they can smoke in their cabins...but since secretaries do not have separate cabin they may not be able to smoke at their desks. Hence, author thinks for secretaries and he want them to have a cabin so that they can smoke!

--So author is assuming the follow things:
1) There will be at least some secretaries who will be willing to smoke at their desks, once the regulations are in place.
2) Regulations should be equal for all the employees. The regulations should not give undue advantage to some specific people.

Options:
(A) Employees at the professional level who do not smoke should keep their enclosed offices.
--Ask yourself..is it absolutely necessary that non smoking professionals should keep their enclosed offices....to conclude that secretaries should have cabins? No!...This is an out of scope option.
(B) Employees with enclosed offices should not smoke at their desks, even though the new regulations permit them to do so.
--This options is making a generic statement that what smokers with enclosed office should do?...The statement is no where telling us that why secretaries have separate cabins?

(C) Employees at the secretarial level should be allowed to smoke at their desks, even if they do not have enclosed offices.
--As per the regulations, no employee can smoke at their desks. The option can't deny that fact.

(D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level.
--It matches with our link.It's absolutely necessary that smoking regulations must be equal for all the employees and should give an equal opportunity to all the employees to smoke to make the author's conclusion to hold true.
--Negate the statement- Smoking regulation should allow not all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so.
-- That would mean atleast few people should not get equal opportunity of smoking. If that's true then it's ok that secretaries are not getting an opportunity to smoke at their desks. So why would they need a separate cabin then?....The author's conclusion does not hold true in this case. Hence this option is correct.

(E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all employees who do not smoke.
--Why it may be one of the concerns of the regulators that the regulations should be in place to protect non smoking fellas....but that's an assumption which doesn't not tell us why secretaries should have a separate cabin? It's a generic thought that tells us about how regulations should be ? The professionals already has separate cabins...so how providing a separate cabin to secretaries will give 'EQUAL PROTECTION' to non smokers?? Therefore, the option is out of context.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

Hello experts,

I was confused between D and E. Can you please help to resolve the confusion?

(E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all employees who do not smoke.
Negation - The smoking regulation must not provide equal protection.....Even if we consider this case, maybe the reason to create enclosed space is to protect other employees who do not smoke from any hazards associated with smoking. There is no reason to offer enclosed spaces to secretaries who smoke. The conclusion will not hold true.

I was confused btw D and E because we don't know the goal of implementing new regulations.
Acc to E - If the goal is to protect people from hazards, then everyone should be offered enclosed space.
Acc to D - If the goal is to provide equal opportunities to smoke, then everyone should be offered enclosed space.
Also regulations might not be created with the intention to discriminate between professional and secretaries, the reason why it is happening could be the org structure. The regulations might be created to simply allow smoking in enclosed spaces.

Question: If you slightly altered A to say something along the lines of employees at the professional level are willing to give up their desks/relocate ...could that also be an assumption and a correct answer?

In my opinion, employs who do not smoke are the sole beneficiaries of this policy. Smoking in public can be hazardous and that is the sole reason to instate such a policy in the first place. I agree that the context doesn’t mention that. But, isn’t that obvious?
IMO E has a fair chance for being ‘it’. As the root cause for instating such a policy is to protect non smokers from smoke.

As a manager(if I were to imagine,) to me, other employees who are n-smokers their concerns are equally important as as to me the concerns of smokers. I (on a personal level) have an equal chance to put one employee’s need over the other’s. In that way, Answer could be either D or E. Personally i think it should have been E. Because smoking is anyways given lower preference these days for the fact that it reduces productivity at work place.

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.