Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
souvik101990
Expert
Alum
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,314
Given Kudos: 2,326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Expert reply
23 Apr 2018, 08:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Employee productivity can, on average, be directly linked to the nutritional value of an employee's diet and the degree to which that employee is adequately hydrated. In a recent study of underperforming employees, the least productive among them were those who had the least nutritional diets. In a subsequent component of that same study, the underperforming employees were placed on nutrient-rich diets, and productivity steadily increased over the six month span of the study. Consequently, to boost productivity, employers should seek to promote nutrient-rich diets across its workforce to the maximum extent feasible.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Several study participants were already documented as those who underperformed their peers in terms of workplace productivity.
B. The least productive employees from the same company in the study who were not placed on nutrient-rich diets did not demonstrate a steady improvement in productivity.
C. Sponsoring nutrient-rich meal programs at work can be less expensive than many other means to boost workforce productivity.
D. Some employees who demonstrated poor job performance had consumed nutrient-poor meals within the prior week.
E. Several study participants were already on record as consuming nutrient-poor diets before entering the study.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Several study participants were already documented as those who underperformed their peers in terms of workplace productivity.
B. The least productive employees from the same company in the study who were not placed on nutrient-rich diets did not demonstrate a steady improvement in productivity.
C. Sponsoring nutrient-rich meal programs at work can be less expensive than many other means to boost workforce productivity.
D. Some employees who demonstrated poor job performance had consumed nutrient-poor meals within the prior week.
E. Several study participants were already on record as consuming nutrient-poor diets before entering the study.
souvik101990
Expert
Alum
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,314
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2,326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Expert reply
23 Apr 2018, 08:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Employee productivity can, on average, be directly linked to the nutritional value of an employee's diet and the degree to which that employee is adequately hydrated. In a recent study of underperforming employees, the least productive among them were those who had the least nutritional diets. In a subsequent component of that same study, the underperforming employees were placed on nutrient-rich diets, and productivity steadily increased over the six month span of the study. Consequently, to boost productivity, employers should seek to promote nutrient-rich diets across its workforce to the maximum extent feasible.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Several study participants were already documented as those who underperformed their peers in terms of workplace productivity.
B. The least productive employees from the same company in the study who were not placed on nutrient-rich diets did not demonstrate a steady improvement in productivity.
C. Sponsoring nutrient-rich meal programs at work can be less expensive than many other means to boost workforce productivity.
D. Some employees who demonstrated poor job performance had consumed nutrient-poor meals within the prior week.
E. Several study participants were already on record as consuming nutrient-poor diets before entering the study.
Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: Study: Nutrient-rich boosts productivity -> companies should promote nutrient-rich
Missing Information: This study is relevant/representative of workers and companies in general; there are no other critical factors that could be involved
Goal: This argument makes a pretty substantial leap in looking at this study. We know very little about in terms of other factors that might be involved in the shifts in performance. The argument also makes a blanket recommendation to companies in general on the basis of this one study. All in all, this is a tremendously flawed argument without the necessary reassurance as to the statistical relevance of the study and its applicability in general.
A. If anything, this option seems to attack the statistical legitimacy of the study. But ultimately this option struggles to show any relevance to the proposal. Some of the study participants could've been underperformers, overachievers, or anything in the middle. That predisposition could have been known well in advance, and the study could be statistically relevant. It's just not clear how knowing that some of the participants were underperformers either strengthens or jeopardizes the proposal.
B. This option turns out to be a very significant because it helps show that the study was controlled. In the prompt, there is a sample that was given a nutrient-rich diet and the productivity improved. Now, here in B, there is a component that was NOT given a nutrient-rich diet and their productivity did not increase. This option helps to isolate a nutrient-rich diet as a key factor, and thus provides greater confidence in the proposal. In sum, B gives us for more faith in the validity of the study given that they've considered other factors and was initially presented in the prompt itself.
C. This is a classic GMAT distracter technique: mentioning cost when it's not directly relevant. In this proposal, we have no idea whether this likely difference in cost would be relevant to companies (we can't assume otherwise). Perhaps the increase in cost is nominal compared to the boost in productivity it might provide.
D. Whether the participants who demonstrated poor job performance did or did not consume nutrient-poor meals the week prior does not clearly affect the study. Mainly because we have no ability to comment on how dietary habits a week prior are relevant to the study itself. For all we know, the diet a week prior might be a completely irrelevant factor.
E. This option is virtually identical to option A, and just like option A it's unclear how knowing that several study participants consumed nutrient-poor diets prior to the study is of any relevance to the proposal either in terms of strengthening it or weakening it for that matter.
Answer: B
Employee productivity can, on average, be directly linked to the nutritional value of an employee's diet and the degree to which that employee is adequately hydrated. In a recent study of underperforming employees, the least productive among them were those who had the least nutritional diets. In a subsequent component of that same study, the underperforming employees were placed on nutrient-rich diets, and productivity steadily increased over the six month span of the study. Consequently, to boost productivity, employers should seek to promote nutrient-rich diets across its workforce to the maximum extent feasible.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Several study participants were already documented as those who underperformed their peers in terms of workplace productivity.
B. The least productive employees from the same company in the study who were not placed on nutrient-rich diets did not demonstrate a steady improvement in productivity.
C. Sponsoring nutrient-rich meal programs at work can be less expensive than many other means to boost workforce productivity.
D. Some employees who demonstrated poor job performance had consumed nutrient-poor meals within the prior week.
E. Several study participants were already on record as consuming nutrient-poor diets before entering the study.
Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: Study: Nutrient-rich boosts productivity -> companies should promote nutrient-rich
Missing Information: This study is relevant/representative of workers and companies in general; there are no other critical factors that could be involved
Goal: This argument makes a pretty substantial leap in looking at this study. We know very little about in terms of other factors that might be involved in the shifts in performance. The argument also makes a blanket recommendation to companies in general on the basis of this one study. All in all, this is a tremendously flawed argument without the necessary reassurance as to the statistical relevance of the study and its applicability in general.
A. If anything, this option seems to attack the statistical legitimacy of the study. But ultimately this option struggles to show any relevance to the proposal. Some of the study participants could've been underperformers, overachievers, or anything in the middle. That predisposition could have been known well in advance, and the study could be statistically relevant. It's just not clear how knowing that some of the participants were underperformers either strengthens or jeopardizes the proposal.
B. This option turns out to be a very significant because it helps show that the study was controlled. In the prompt, there is a sample that was given a nutrient-rich diet and the productivity improved. Now, here in B, there is a component that was NOT given a nutrient-rich diet and their productivity did not increase. This option helps to isolate a nutrient-rich diet as a key factor, and thus provides greater confidence in the proposal. In sum, B gives us for more faith in the validity of the study given that they've considered other factors and was initially presented in the prompt itself.
C. This is a classic GMAT distracter technique: mentioning cost when it's not directly relevant. In this proposal, we have no idea whether this likely difference in cost would be relevant to companies (we can't assume otherwise). Perhaps the increase in cost is nominal compared to the boost in productivity it might provide.
D. Whether the participants who demonstrated poor job performance did or did not consume nutrient-poor meals the week prior does not clearly affect the study. Mainly because we have no ability to comment on how dietary habits a week prior are relevant to the study itself. For all we know, the diet a week prior might be a completely irrelevant factor.
E. This option is virtually identical to option A, and just like option A it's unclear how knowing that several study participants consumed nutrient-poor diets prior to the study is of any relevance to the proposal either in terms of strengthening it or weakening it for that matter.
Answer: B
