V33-14

Question

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.
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.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

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.
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.

Choice A: No. The term unemployed is not an issue in the argument.
 
 Choice B: Yes.  The argument assumes that upon releasing 250 employees that there will be no further absences that could negatively impact service levels.
 
Choice C: No. The argument does not assume that every employee’s level of service is identical.
 
Choice D: No. That some absences are more justified than others has no impact on the validity of the conclusion.
 
Choice E: No. That absences may be unevenly distributed at the company has no impact on the validity of the conclusion.

Answer: B

utkarsh0206 · Answer

I think the  option B  the premise has already assumed and when they said that by approx 5% absent still the services are better than ever 
and it failed to assume that the distribution of those 250 absentees might be uneven

So I think  Option E  would suffice

Dream009 · Answer

I agree - Option E is a more stronger fit. I checked with Chatgpt too:

Answer choices:
 
  A. He confuses absent and unemployed. 
 → Not exactly; he doesn’t mistake definitions, he misuses the logic. 
  B. He fails to justify an assumed change in absenteeism. 
 → Absenteeism isn’t assumed to change, so this doesn’t hit the core flaw. 
  C. He takes for granted that every employee’s level of service is identical. 
 → Not central here. Even if unequal, the bigger issue is  distribution . 
  D. He overlooks the fact that some absences are more justified than others. 
 → Irrelevant. Justification doesn’t matter; coverage does. 
  E. He ignores the possibility that absences may be unevenly distributed at the company.  ✅
 →  Correct.  If absences cluster in certain facilities or shifts, the company may struggle without extra staff. Cutting permanently removes flexibility that covers uneven absence patterns.

hr1212 · Answer

This is quite a good question, with underlying assumption intricacies. To find out the vulnerability, let's try to identify the underlying assumption of the question,

Since 5% of employees are regularly absent without negatively affecting delivery rates, the company can permanently reduce its workforce by 5% without compromising performance.

Good on paper but the critical missing aspect here is that 5% absentees on regular basis can be revolving whereas 5% workforce removed has permanent effect on workstreams which is quite different and the main underlying assumption.

Let's discuss the two popular choices -

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

This is quite possible but is not the required assumption for the conclusion to hold true. Even if we consider the absences to be evenly distributed across the company, the conclusion could still fall apart when we permanently removing certain workforce. Like if 5 employees are absent on avg from all the departments then the work can be managed by other employees who are available on that day who can in turn take a leave some other day to reset, but if they are permanently removed then the workload for others remaining will start taking a toll on a regular basis, which means this is not a critical criteria or the main vulnerability of the argument. This option is just identifying one of the possible complications.

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

This hits the core assumption of the argument, ie. he treats the rotating absence to be similar to permanent absence. Like let's suppose in the initial 5% list of absentees, Employee 1 was absent on day 1, Employee 2 on day 2 and so on, and hence there was no effect on the delivery rates. But if we remove Employee 1 permanently then it definitely can have drastic effect on the firm's outcome because few people can cover up someone else's work on rotating basis but not permanently. And this is the main assumption of the argument, and hence the vulnerability we are looking for.

Goldenfuture · Answer

Okay - I finally got it why B is the answer. Let me explain. What the author is assuming is after cutting these ppl out there will be no -one who takes an off and service level will continue. Today if someone takes an off - service level is not impacted becuase we have someone else cover for it or buffer. He is saying okay - lets cut the buffer - but he is assuming even with that service quality will be maintained and that would only happen if those exact ppl come to work everyday

E will not work - if those ppl are from same facility conclusion will not fall apart - if they are spread across - I get the point and this is partial weakener. But we never pick an option which makes as assume another thing for make it more robust.

E will not work - if those ppl are from same facility conclusion will not fall apart - if they are spread across - I get the point and this is partial weakener. But we never pick an option which makes as assume another thing for make it more robust.

repellatquas · Answer

Can you also explain why C is incorrect?

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  repellatquas  let me try to help for option C why it is not correct

Even if we assume every employee's level of service is identical, the manager's argument still falls apart. Reducing the headcount by 250 means that on any given day, a 5% absence rate will leave only aroynd 4,500 people working. The core flaw is mathematical/structural, not related to individual employee efficiency.

Hope this helps

V33-14

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