Let's break this argument down step by step.
The manager's goal is to save money. He presents two options:
-
Option 1: Install during the DAY → cheaper installation, BUT disrupts employee work (lost productivity).
-
Option 2: Install at NIGHT → more expensive installation, BUT no disruption to work.
His conclusion: Install during the day to save money.
Here's the critical gap in his reasoning. He's only comparing the direct installation costs. But daytime installation causes disrupted work, and disrupted work has a monetary cost too — lost productivity means lost output, which means lost revenue.
So to truly save money, daytime installation only makes sense IF:
The money saved on installation charges > the money lost from disrupted productivity.
If, for example, nighttime installation costs
$5,000 extra, but the daytime disruption causes
$20,000 in lost productivity, then daytime installation actually COSTS MORE overall.
The manager's argument would collapse.That's exactly what Answer B states: the manager assumes that the monetary value of lost productivity during daytime installation is LESS than the extra cost of nighttime installation. Without this assumption, choosing daytime installation doesn't actually save money — it just shifts the cost from installation charges to productivity losses.
Why not the other answers?-
A: Compares equipment value to installation cost — irrelevant to the day vs. night decision.
-
C: Crew size doesn't matter; the argument is about total cost comparison.
-
D: What happens after installation doesn't affect the day vs. night choice.
-
E: Even if employees can work during installation, the argument already states there WILL be disruption.
This doesn't address whether the disruption cost is less than the nighttime premium.Key takeaway: When an argument claims one option 'saves money,' always check whether it accounts for ALL costs — including indirect ones like lost productivity. The hidden assumption is often that the indirect costs don't outweigh the direct savings.Answer: B