A company has a policy of rewarding its most productive employees with

Question

A company has a policy of rewarding its most productive employees with monetary bonuses. However, a recent study found that non-monetary incentives are more effective than monetary incentives in motivating employees. As a result, the company decided to eliminate its monetary bonus policy and replace it with a non-monetary reward: the most productive employees will have the opportunity to have dinner with senior executives. 
 
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument for replacing the monetary bonus policy with the dinner incentive? 
 
(A) The study did not specifically examine the motivational effects of dinner incentives. 
 (B) Senior executives who attend the dinner often receive a thank-you note from the employees afterward. 
 (C) The company in the study did not have any monetary reward policies in place before the research was conducted. 
 (D) Non-monetary incentives are generally more cost-effective for companies than monetary incentives. 
 (E) Employees who have received monetary bonuses in the past may resent the change to the dinner incentive.

Matty101 · Answer

If I may ask, what is the source of this question?

Uday4Singh · Answer

could someone explain this to me please?
i marked C as the answer

Omnoui · Answer

Could someone explain why the correct answer is not E ?

terminatork07 · Answer

I'll take a stab at it -

Crux/Conclusion - Non-Monetory policy  motivates more  effectively than monetary bonus policy.

Approach - its about the effectiveness of one kind of policy over the other, the answer needs to weaken the  effectiveness of motivation provided  of dinner-policy over monetory policy.

Why C is wrong?
Out of scope - What happends before the research/study was conducted doesn't matter. Why? let's presume that monetary policy was started post/during the study, can't monetory policy be more effective in motivating the employees, even though it started post/during the study ? This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion.

Why E is wrong ?
1. Word play on "may" - we can't conclusively say whether employees will actually resent the change or not. (possibility vs surity)
2. The conclusion is about which policy is more effective for motivating employees. Does this E talk about motivation anywhere or did you make a logical jump that resentement of employees corresponds to low motivation?

Dash8085 · Answer

The argument concludes that the company should replace its monetary bonus policy with a non-monetary reward (dinner with senior executives), based on a study claiming that non-monetary incentives are more effective at motivating employees.

To weaken this argument, we need to find a choice that casts doubt on whether the dinner incentive will actually be more effective than the monetary bonuses — either by questioning the relevance of the study to the new policy or by pointing out negative consequences of the switch.

Let’s evaluate the answer choices:

(A) The study did not specifically examine the motivational effects of dinner incentives.
This weakens the argument.

The argument relies on the study’s support of non-monetary incentives to justify this specific non-monetary incentive (dinner).

If the study didn’t evaluate dinner as an incentive, then it's unclear if this specific reward is actually effective — undermining the decision.

Strongest answer.

(B) Senior executives who attend the dinner often receive a thank-you note from the employees afterward.
This is irrelevant to whether the incentive motivates employees.

It reflects employee politeness or gratitude but doesn’t show that the dinner works as a motivator.

Does not weaken.

(C) The company in the study did not have any monetary reward policies in place before the research was conducted.
This is somewhat relevant, but indirect.

It might imply that the study's context differs from the company’s — which could weaken the generalization — but it’s a weaker critique than (A), which directly questions the relevance of the study to the new incentive.

Mildly weakens, but not as much as (A).

(D) Non-monetary incentives are generally more cost-effective for companies than monetary incentives.
This supports the change (more cost-effective), not weakens it.

But cost-effectiveness isn’t the focus — employee motivation is.
 
Strengthens or irrelevant.

(E) Employees who have received monetary bonuses in the past may resent the change to the dinner incentive.
This potentially weakens the policy by introducing a morale issue.

But it doesn’t directly challenge whether the new incentive is less effective, just that some employees might be unhappy.

Possible weakening, but more about employee satisfaction, not incentive effectiveness.

Correct Answer: (A) : Because it directly challenges the validity of applying the study’s conclusion to the company’s new dinner-based policy.

A company has a policy of rewarding its most productive employees with

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A company has a policy of rewarding its most productive employees with

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards