In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may

Question

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.

It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?

I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.

(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only

TommyWallach · Accepted Answer

Hey All,

I'm going to weigh in on this one, at the risk of being incorrect. The thing about questions using the word "infer" is that they expect you to stay SHOCKINGLY close to what's written. We know that statement I can be inferred for the reason that many have explained (loafing due to difficulty to fire). However, even though the last statement says "This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient," we cannot necessarily infer that the writer thinks civil servants are the majority of the government.

Think of it this way, one bad employee at the top of a hierarchy could make the whole thing inefficient. We can think that that one bad employee makes the whole system inefficient without thinking that that employee makes up the majority of the work force.

Therefore I agree that A is the answer.

Hope that helps! (And that I'm right!)

-t

TommyWallach · Answer

Hey Rohit,

Remember to go with the WUSSIEST answer choices on inference questions. Notice the word CAN...that's not very broad. We have one example where this has happened, so it's NECESSARILY true that job security CAN have a negative influence. "Shoulds" are unlikely, as are any EXTREME words, like "all" "never" "always" or even "most" (As we see in option II).

Hope that helps!

-t

jallenmorris · Answer

A or D. I think I'm going with A. At first I thought I and II, but that wasn't an option. I don't like III because nothing in the argument supports how many gov't workers are civil service employees. As for #2, the argument implies that it is hard and costly to fire them, but that doesn't mean workers are not actually fired, even though it costs a lot of money to do it. There could be no more workers this author thinks should be fired, but it cost the government a bunch of money to do it. Also, with #2, we don't know whether the author thinks it is a good thing that these workers be fired. All we know is that it is very difficult to fire them. This author could think that these employees should be counseled until they perform better, rather than being fired. I don't see in the argument where we can actually support the author's view on what action should be taken regarding employees that loaf. Third third issue is that the statistic is about Civil Service employees, which we believe to be government employees, but # II is about government employees. Because the author does not excplicitly state that Civil Service = all government employees, we cannot make that leap for the author in this logic and II has another reason it is not supported.

papillon86

15. In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only

Another one with a wrong OA i guess....plz verify

rohitgoel15 · Answer

IMO A

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers. -- True
II. More government workers should be fired. -- Not mentioned --> C and D out
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees. -- Too broad .. If  most  was not there i would have gone with this option

(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only

rohitgoel15 · Answer

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers. 
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.

Isn't the option A too broad as we are only talking of the  Civil Service employee  and not any  workers 
For the above reason I was moving away from Option A.

VikashAlex · Answer

Will go with A.

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
 
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.... YES, this is true. This conveys from the end line -This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
II. More government workers should be fired.....Argument is on government inefficiency not on firing...hence OUT OF SCOPE.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees....the last line has mentioned " This explains..." , here "this" is not referring to civil services rather to the system/company - in which employees know it is hard to fire them. And here civil services is taken an example of this system. Hence this COULD NOT BE THE CHOICE.

rohaan95 · Answer

We mostly tend the mistake with our natural ability. I read the last line as "This explains why large part of the government is inefficient" and hence chose B as the answer, however the line says "This explains in large part why the government is inefficient" which states nothing about the employees, hence (3) cannot be inferred.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

Nidhibatra · Answer

Could someone please clearly explain why first statement is correct inspite of the fact that it is too broad and talk about workers in general and why last statement is incorrect?

Posted from my mobile device

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

This problem is a bit loose--it's clearly not official--but it's important to recognize that A is not broad at all. When we say that something CAN be true, that doesn't mean it applies to more cases beyond what we've seen. For instance, there's a man in my town who was born without arms and has learned to play the guitar with his feet. It's quite impressive to watch, and certainly not something most of us could do. But it CAN happen, because it did in this case. So when we say "X can happen" or "A person can do X," that doesn't mean that it usually/often happens, or even that it has happened more than once. It just means that it isn't completely impossible.

As for III, it has no support whatsoever. "Most" means "more than half," but we have no idea what proportion of government workers are Civil Service employees. The argument hasn't even mentioned any other kind of government worker, nor how numerous any type is.

gaubeo308 · Answer

A Note on Answer Choice (E) 
In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.

It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?

I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.

(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only

Explanation on (E):  Statement III is not necessarily implied by the statements of the author because most government workers do not need to be Civil Service employees to make the government inefficient ( e.g. , a small number of Civil Service employees in a huge military government could cause a lot of waste and inefficiency if these employees are in important positions).

rak08 · Answer

why do we say II is not properly inferable?

when they say " hard to fire" + " inefficient" so this means atleast 1 person is someone who is to be fired but this $100000 is stopping the manager?
and if the premise is about civil service employees and conclusion is on entire government cant we infer III also?

egmat   GMATNinja  @KarshimaB

egmat · Answer

Why Statement II is NOT Inferable: 
You're thinking: "They loaf, so they should be fired, right?"

Here's the key distinction:
 "Tend to loaf" ≠ "So bad they should be fired"

Loafing means slacking, not working at full effort. It does  NOT  mean they're completely failing at their jobs.

Analogy:  "Students tend to procrastinate when deadlines are far away."
Does that mean → "More students should be expelled"?

No.  It describes a  behavioral tendency caused by circumstances  - not that individuals are so bad they deserve removal.

The author is criticizing the SYSTEM, not the WORKERS.

What the author IS saying: 
• "This system creates loafing"
• "Job security causes bad behavior"

What the author is NOT saying: 
• "These specific people deserve to be fired"
• "We need more terminations"

The blame is on the  structure  (too hard to fire), not a call to punish the  individuals .

---

Why Statement III is NOT Inferable:

Your logic: "If Civil Service employees explain government inefficiency, they must be the majority."

"Big impact" ≠ "Big group"

" In large part " tells us about  impact size , not  group size .

Example:  Imagine only  30%  of government workers are Civil Service, BUT they hold critical bottleneck positions. Their loafing delays everyone else. This could  still  explain "in large part" why government is inefficient.

rak08 · Answer

egmat

but there has to be a basis right to conclude "tend to loaf?"
like there would be atleast 1 person who was slacking and maybe thats why they are saying that "firing" should be an available option

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  rak08 , let me try. As per the argument given, employees are attracted to loafing, but is the author anywhere advocating firing them as an option? he just says that if we fire these employees, it may cost too much money. In inference, in my opinion, the option choice has to be 100% supported by the argument. Firing more employees as a viable option is not mentioned or recommended as per the argument.

Hope this helps

egmat · Answer

The author lays out a    cause-and-effect chain:    Hard to fire (costs    $100,000   ) → Employees know this → They loaf → Government is inefficient.

That's a  diagnosis,  NOT a prescription for a solution.
 
 You're adding a step the passage doesn't support. A doctor says,  "Your high sugar intake is causing weight gain."  Does that mean the doctor believes "you should skip all meals"? No, that's one possible fix you're inserting. It could be a great fix, but it's your fix, not the doctor's fix. The doctor might recommend exercise or portion control or ozempic instead.
 
 Same here. The author could believe: make firing cheaper, add incentives, restructure protections - we simply don't know.  "More people should be fired"  is YOUR solution, not necessarily the author's.
 
  A useful test for GMAT Inference questions: 
 
 Ask yourself:    Would I bet $1,000 that the author believes this to be 100% true?

Statement I - "Too much job security can negatively influence workers." The passage literally argues this.   Easy bet.   ✅ 
 Statement II - "More government workers should be fired." Maybe, maybe not, the author never goes there. Is there is a good chance the author would think that? Yes; But is it certain? No.   You'd lose that bet.   ❌

Answer: (A) I only

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may

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

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may

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