Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs

Question

Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone. Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist’s reasoning?

(A) Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies’ decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages. 
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees. 
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs. 
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign. 
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed.

Source:LSAT Set 56 CR

Carcass · Answer

If the morale is the primary concern to decide between layoff people or decrease wages, then A is the best choice.

The others are out of scope or irrelevant.

Ask for further assistance.

Regards

Posted from my mobile device

ravikumarmishra · Answer

A indeed is best but D also has a point, since it has “some” it is out.

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

vasuca10 · Answer

aroraishita02 I marked Option D as it states that when companies cut personnel cost during recession by reducing wages, some employees usually resign so isn't it strengthening our conclusion? I was stuck between A and D. Eventually marked incorrect answer choice Option D

Also can you please post official explanation for this question

vasuca10 · Answer

Experts  nightblade354   abhimahna   daagh  sir  VeritasKarishma

Please guide . How can we eliminate Option D?

sumit411 · Answer

Hi Vasuca10, I would like to help you with this one. I think you jumbled up the meaning of laying off and resigning. Laying off is not by choice. On the other hand resigning is by choice. Think again about the conclusion now - - -> will surely clear the air. Consider kudos if that helped

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

shivamguptaaa · Answer

Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone. Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist???s reasoning?

(A) Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies??? decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages. 
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees. 
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs. 
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign. 
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed.

pkshankar · Answer

Companies have 2 options during a recession:
1) Either layoff a few people without reducing the wages of the rest.
2) Reduce the wages of all without laying off anyone

As per the author both the situations damage the morale of employees but option 1 has a lesser impact, hence author concludes that whenever a company needs to reduce costs during a recession it is more likely to lay off employees. 
Companies could take either of the 2 decisions as both would lead to a reduction of companies' personal expenses but they decide to go with option 1 as employees' morale is of prime importance to the companies and this is what option 'A' says.

sampad · Answer

This is more of a find the conclusion, rather than strengthen.

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.

Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs

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

Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs

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