A factory manager at Artitus Industries suggested that tools be assign

Question

A factory manager at Artitus Industries suggested that tools be assigned to individual employees rather than shared within each workshop. Employees with their own tools would have more incentive to maintain the tools properly, as each employee would suffer all of the costs of improperly maintaining his or her tools. However, several months after Artitus began assigning tools to individual employees in one of its two workshops, it was found that the shared tools in the other workshop had been better maintained.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the Artitus's finding?

A. If one user of shared tools fails to keep them in perfect condition, others are likely to begin to neglect the tools even more, with the result that the tools soon become unusable.
 
B. When tools are shared, the condition of any individual tool affects all users at least somewhat.

C. An employee using shared tools might be able to increase productivity by neglecting to maintain them.

D. More companies assign tools individually than share them among employees.

E. The damage from any individual user's failure to properly maintain tools is more difficult to determine with shared tools than with individual tools.

mba1382 · Accepted Answer

OA is correct and in fact, it's a copy of the below official question:

Hardin argued that grazing land held in common(that is, open to any user) would always be used less carefully than private grazing land. Each rancher would be tempted to overuse common land because the benefits would accrue to the individuals, while the costs of reduced land quality that results from overuse would be spread among all users. But a study comparing 217 million acres of common grazing land with 433 million acres of private grazing land showed that the common land was in better condition.

Which of the following, if true and known by the ranchers, would best help explain the results of the study?

(A): With private grazing land, both the costs and the benefits of overuse fall to the individual user.
(B): The cost in reduced land quality that is attributable to any individual user is less easily measured with common land than it is with private land.
(C): An individual who overuses common grazing land might be able to achieve higher returns than other uses can, with the result that he or she would obtain a competitive advantage.
(D): If one user of common land overuses it even slightly, the other users are likely to do so even more, with the consequence that the costs to each user outweigh the benefits.
(E): There are more acres of grazing hand held privately than there are held in common.

Carcass · Answer

yes you are right. the answer , though is tempting, can not be E at a closer look

The argument is pretty straight

A company want to give a single tool for employee to foster productivity or whatever it is.......BUT the conclusion shows that is wrong and that the good way to do X is TO SHARE the tools among the employees. Basically the argument is this.

So we must find a reason that shows WHY ?? WHY ??? is better sharing the tools rather than not

A says just this i.e : if we (the employees) do not care of the single various tools we share among us, the tools will become unusable; tha's why the tools are well maintained.

E instead :  The damage  from any individual user's failure to properly maintain tools  is more difficult to determine with shared tools than with individual tools.

But E doesn't say WHY sharing is good, using a comparison between shared and individual tools. It doesn't hold any water.

Hope is clear

gthrb22 · Answer

Here the conclusion is after assigning individual tools shared tools had been better maintained.Anyone with their own tool is likely to get more incentive for its maintenance than the assigned tools.

A.  Correct -States that if the tools assigned by the company is shared and if one user doesn't properly maintains than others will also do the same because they won't get any benefit (incentives) for its maintenance unlike one of their own .
B.If tools are shared be it assigned or own is only going to affect the person who owns it not all.
C.Productivity is irrelevant here.
D.Irrelevant.
E.We are not talking about the damage here only about maintenance so out of scope.

Hope this helps

kannu44 · Answer

Why it cant be B ?
Thanks in advance

sayantanc2k · Answer

If the adverse effect of negligence of one user is shared by many users, then there is less incentive to take care of the tool. However if the adverse effect of negligence of one user is to be borne by only the user himself / herself , then there is more incentive to take care of the tool. Therefore option B cannot explain why the shared tools are in better condition than the individually issue tools. (It could explain if the result were opposite.)

PUNEETSCHDV · Answer

The key word is "PERFECT CONDITION". Now the negation test can help understand why A is only good option.

A Even if some users don't strive to maintain perfect condition the tools would still be useful.  That shatters the conclusion.  
So everyone had striven for perfect condition.

B When tools are shared, the condition of any individual tool does not affect all users. SO what ??

C and D were anyways irrelevant

E The damage from any individual user's failure to properly maintain tools is not more difficult to determine with shared tools than with individual tools. NO IMPACT

prasanna1417 · Answer

I answered (A) with following LOR: Conclusion: despite so many positive points-->> However, several months after Artitus began assigning tools to individual employees in one of its two workshops, it was found that the shared tools in the other workshop had been better maintained. ---->>> how how how??????? A) If one user of shared tools fails to keep them in perfect condition, others are likely to begin to neglect the tools even more, with the result that the tools soon become unusable. What if the same is negated---->>> If one user of shared tools fails ensures to keep them in perfect condition, others are likely to begin to neglect take care of the tools even more, with the result that the tools soon become unusable usable. It addresses the How how how....

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Although I picked correctly, honestly I don’t know where B is definitely wrong, since A and B are almost the same meaning to me.

I just guess: A points out an severe result-tools will become unusable, so nobody will benefit. But B just says affect all people and not say the result and how to affect, so maybe still some workers can benefit.

Discussion welcomed.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A factory manager at Artitus Industries suggested that tools be assign

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A factory manager at Artitus Industries suggested that tools be assign

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