12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 6: Production manager: Our

Production manager: Our warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide. Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday. Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever. Therefore, we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.

Let's untangle the stimulus. The manager says that even with 250 people absent, their deliveries work perfectly. Therefore, he can easily let go of "these" 250 people.

Of course, the mistake is obvious - it's not as simple as that, because those absences due to personal or medical reasons will probably continue, even if some staff is dismissed, because humans are still humans.

Let's see which option says anything about it.


This he does, of course, but not in confusion - deliberatly. So this is wrong.


Exactly what we are lookng for! The fact that he dismisses people doesn't guarantee that those who are left will never be absent.


Well, he does it both with absenteeism and firing, so it's not exactly applicable. It doesn't hinder the conclusion, it generally illustrates the flaw in reasoning.


This is generally irrelevant for the discussion.


Once again, he applies this to both absent and fired people. So, within the scope of the argument, it's not particularly worsening the conclusion - but the whole line of reasoning. Also, we have no info how the dismissals will be distributed.

As a result, the only suitable option is B, which is the correct answer.

Production manager: Our warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide. Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday. Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever. Therefore, we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.

The production manager’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.
Incorrect.

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.
Correct. 5% were absent before. Not after firing 250 people we are assuming 0% absenteeism.

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.
Incorrect. It is not assumed that every employee's service level is identical.

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.
Incorrect. This is not a valid criticism of the argument.

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.
Incorrect. No, absences may be unevenly distributed - this is not a valid criticism of the argument

The production manager’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

Weaken: We need to show that a decrease in staffing by 250 people could impact service.
What if majority of the absenteeism occur at one facility, then company will definitely experience a decrease in service


A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed. no

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism. no

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical. no

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others. no

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company. yes. if this is true, then the company has a problem

IMO B.

PM is assuming that once they lower staff by 250, rest of the employees (4750) would never be absent.

It is obvious that some percentage of remaining employee will be absent after that, therefore reducing the workforce to <4750 which might lead to decrease in service

Posted from my mobile device

Production manager: Our warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide. Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday. Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever. Therefore, we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.

The production manager’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?


A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed. This directly attacks the conclusion hence our answer

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company

Posted from my mobile device

Argument :
Warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide
5 % are absent on any given day
Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever.

Conclusion : Therefore, we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed. not relevant to argument

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism. ; by lowering the 5% of staff he is ignoring the fact that workforce will further decrease and with 5% avg daily absentism the work will get affected correct

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical. ; no info given here of type of work of all employees

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others. ; irrelevant


E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.
does not support the conclusion


OPTION B is correct

This is an interesting question, with a lot of similar answers. But we can solve this question if we pre-think the answer before looking at the answer choices. We need to find the gap in the argument. I was able to find two:

If he fires 5% of the staff, does that guarantee that the absence rate will drop? And if it does not drop, can they still maintain efficiency with now 10% of their original staff out at any given day?

What are these 250 employees getting fired for? Are they leaving because they are the most absent out of all the others? What if there is a small portion of employees that are absent most of the time?

With these questions in mind we see that only option E talks mentions that.

Therefore, correct answer is E.

IMO B

The Manager fails to take into account that if 250 workers are dismissed the remaining may also take leave. And the number of the remaining staff might not be good enough to maintain the quality of service.

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism. - Correct

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.

Production manager: Our warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide. Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday. Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever. Therefore, we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.

The production manager’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?


A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.
Definitions are not mentioned in the argument -Eliminate

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.
By saying that 250 i.e 5% of employees can be laid he assumes that once lay off is done no remaining employees will go on leave
Correct choice

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.
Out of scope

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.
Not discussed in the argument

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.
Not discussed in the argument


(B) is correct IMO

Production manager: Our warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide. Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday. Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever.

Conclusion: Therefore, we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.

The production manager’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?



The conclusion is not dependent on unemployed employees.
Incorrect


He takes for granted that there will be no further employees absent after 5% reduction in employees strength.
If after 5% reduction in employees, there may be further absenteeism affecting service.
Incorrect


The argument is not concerned about every employee's level of service.
The conclusion if not affected by the statement.
Incorrect


The argument is not concerned about whether some absences are more justified than are others. It is concerned about overall absenteeism.
The conclusion if not affected by the statement.
Incorrect


The argument is not concerned about whether absences may be evenly or unevenly distributed at the company.. It is concerned about overall absenteeism.
The conclusion if not affected by the statement.
Incorrect

IMO B

Answer A.
A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.
Indeed. People do not show up today may show up tomorrow with better energy.

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism. irrelevant

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.irrelevant

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.Nope he does not.

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.Tempting, but too specific

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.
In case of an employee being absent or unemloyed the work is not done by that portion of the employee. So no effect.

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.
Absentee means work is not done by that portion, reason doesn't matter.

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.
Yes, what if the employees who are fired accounted for the major portion of the work done also these were those employees who never took leave. In that case, the conclusion will fail.

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.
We are not looking for the gravity of the reason for absences.

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.
Dosen't help because someone is pulling weight on their behalf.

Observation:
1. Our warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide.
2. Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday.

Premise: Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever.

Conclusion: we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.

We have to weaken the conclusion.

Pre-think: 5% absenteeism means on an average 5000-5%*5000 = 4750 employees are working. But if we remove 250 employees then we can't be 100% sure that there won't be any absenteeism. Hence, the on-time delivery rate might get impacted.

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed...............................No. Unemployed is out of scope.

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism....................This matches with our pre-thining. Keep it.

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.....................Level of service is not discussed in the argument.

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others......................Nope. it doesn't impact the conclusion

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company...............Nope. We are talking about averages (approximately to be precise) here. Reject it.

IMO OA should be B

Production manager: Our warehouses have a total of 5,000 employees working to ensure daily on-time package delivery based out of 200 facilities nationwide. Of these 5,000 employees, approximately 5 percent are absent on any given workday. Even with these regular absences, our on-time delivery rates are better than ever. Therefore, we should be able to lower staffing by 250 employees and experience no decrease in service.

The production manager’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of these grounds?

Solution: The first thought that went through my head after reading the conclusion was that are the same people absent every day. If 5% of total staff is absent on any regular day that could mean a different number of different people across all facilities are absent on any regular day, not the same number of same people every day. The author seems to think that just because these people are absent they are not employable.

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.: Seems close to our thinking.

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.: If anything the author doesn't assume any change in absenteeism. The author seems to assume that the same people are absent every day.

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.:Nope, irrelevant

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.: Irrelevant

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.: Even if he considers it, there's no change. There could be a different number of absentees but are they the same people or different.

Thus, answer is A

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.
-> He doesn't

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.
-> If I understand correctly, the criticism here is that the author fails to realise that lowering staff will not change the % of absenteeism - thus leading to approx 10% staff decrease instead of the 5%.

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.
-> He is working on averages, so I would disagree

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.
-> His logic is not based on justifications

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.
-> He does ignore this, and this effect could be compounded if 250 employees are fired (average of 1 per store).

Between B and E I choose B, because unevenness is something that does not currently greatly affect the delivery rates. The main issue with the logic of the conclusion is that it ignores the effects of a 10% decrease in available staff overall.

Posted from my mobile device

Initial Analysis: 250 persons are absent at any given time in a place that employs 5000 persons.
Since the work is not affected with these absences, the 'smart' manager wants to lay-off 250 persons.

How can this be weakened ?
A few thoughts that immediately come to mind
a) People are entitled ot their leaves.
b) If 250 persons are layed-off, the remaining 4750 will have to stretch hard with no leaves - so people will start leaving.
c) There could be other reasons in the options - let us check

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.
REJECTED: While his answer might appeal to an Employee union activist, it does not logically weaken the Manager's argument.

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.
RIGHT ANSWER: What if more people start taking leave after the firing ? The work will suffer.
When 5000 people were there, there were 4750 persons to share the work when 250 were absent.
After the firing, When 4750 people were there, there will be 4500 persons to share the work of the 250 absentees.

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.
REJECTED: Can slightly dent the argument. But, cannot weaken it.
What if the 250 persons being layed-off are the persons with the lowest levels of service ?
IN that case the argument is stengthened.

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.
REJECTED: Irrelevant. It does not weaken. It does not matter what an employee does when on leave.

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.
REJECTED: Even if the leaves are taken in an evenly distributed manner, the the manager's argument is not weakened.

Conclusion: Lowering the staffing by 250 employees would not decrease the service.

A. He confuses the definitions of absent and unemployed.

Out of scope : This doesn't throw light on the conclusion.

B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism.

I think this the best option. Lets say after the staff is lowered the number of absentees increase. The delivery rates may get affected.

C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical.

Distortion : I think this is pretty close. However, even if the service level is not identical the employees are still maintaining on-time delivery rates. Also, we how the lowering of staff would be done is not given. May be the employees with bad service record be let go.

D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than are others.

Out of scope : This doesn't throw light on the conclusion.

E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.

Out of scope : How the layoff would be done is not mentioned, hence we cannot conclude that it would be a homogeneous decrease across facilities.

After a lot of thought between B & C ...

IMO - B