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 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
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.
19 Jan 2020, 05:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:48) correct
30%
(01:54)
wrong
based on 338
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The less frequently employees leave the office for a restaurant lunch each week, the fewer sick days they take. Even employees who reduce their number of restaurant lunches by only one per week take less sick time than those who eat lunch at restaurants every day. Therefore, if companies started to offer on-site cafeterias, the absentee rate in those companies would decrease significantly.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
A. Employees who eat in cafeterias sometimes make personal phone calls upon returning to their work areas.
B. Employees who are frequently absent are the least likely to eat in a company cafeteria.
C. Employees who eat in company cafeterias usually eat more healthy meals at home.
D. Employees who eat in company cafeterias use their working time no more productively than those who eat restaurant meals.
E. Employees who eat in company cafeterias tend to take more frequent breaks in the morning and afternoon than those who eat their lunch in restaurants.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
A. Employees who eat in cafeterias sometimes make personal phone calls upon returning to their work areas.
B. Employees who are frequently absent are the least likely to eat in a company cafeteria.
C. Employees who eat in company cafeterias usually eat more healthy meals at home.
D. Employees who eat in company cafeterias use their working time no more productively than those who eat restaurant meals.
E. Employees who eat in company cafeterias tend to take more frequent breaks in the morning and afternoon than those who eat their lunch in restaurants.
20 Jan 2020, 00:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
ANALYSIS:
Given:
1. Less often employees eat at restaurants during office hours = less off from work (sick leaves)
2. Even one less restaurant lunch = fewer offs from work (sick leaves)
a. Compared to everyday lunch at restaurant during office
3. Conclusion: If cafeterias were available on the office premises, absentee rate would decrease considerably- that is, employees would take less time off from work.
PRE-THINKING
1. MISSING LINK: The author believes that eating at restaurants frequently/everyday leads to more absenteeism/less time given to work at the office (in the way of more sick leaves).
2. Thus, the conclusion is drawn that the cafeteria on the office premises would help reduce this absenteeism from work by a significant margin. Once the cafeteria is there on site- the employees who frequent restaurants will stop going there and eat at the cafeteria.
3. Assumption: The author assumes that with the on-site availability of the cafeteria, the employees who frequent restaurants and/or are frequently absent will significantly reduce their restaurant visits and eat at the cafeteria
4. Weakener: Employees who are prone to absenteeism are unlikely to eat at cafeterias
ANSWER CHOICE ELIMINATION
A. Employees who eat in cafeterias sometimes make personal phone calls upon returning to their work areas.
(“Sometimes” is a very vague time reference. Even employees who eat at cafeterias might make calls sometimes. Therefore, this does not weaken the argument as it does not signify a significant increase in time away from work. This choice is out of scope.
Incorrect Choice)
B. Employees who are frequently absent are the least likely to eat in a company cafeteria.
(This is in line with our pre-thought weakener.
Correct Choice)
C. Employees who eat in company cafeterias usually eat more healthy meals at home.
(The argument hints at the idea that eating at restaurants perhaps make the employees sick and they take leaves. Less healthy meals at cafeteria does not necessarily mean falling sick more frequently. Moreover, the comparison is between employees eating at restaurants and employees eating at cafeterias. The comparison is not between employees eating at restaurants and employees eating healthy meals at home. This choice is actually irrelevant.
Incorrect Choice.)
D. Employees who eat in company cafeterias use their working time no more productively than those who eat restaurant meals.
(This choice goes on to make certain assumptions. This choice links time spent at work with productivity. However, this choice does not suggest that the employees eating at the cafeteria will spend more time at work than the ones who eat at restaurants.
Even then, let’s say, by eating at cafeterias employees do spend more time working. Even then, the following situations arise
“No more productively” has two implications
1. Equally productively- more time spent on work with equal productivity actually supports the setting up of cafeterias
2. Less productively – more time spent on work but less productively weakens the idea of setting up cafeterias.
This ambiguous impact makes this choice incorrect.
Incorrect Choice)
E. Employees who eat in company cafeterias tend to take more frequent breaks in the morning and afternoon than those who eat their lunch in restaurants.
(This choice does not address the issue of absenteeism and is therefore out of scope.
Incorrect Choice)
Given:
1. Less often employees eat at restaurants during office hours = less off from work (sick leaves)
2. Even one less restaurant lunch = fewer offs from work (sick leaves)
a. Compared to everyday lunch at restaurant during office
3. Conclusion: If cafeterias were available on the office premises, absentee rate would decrease considerably- that is, employees would take less time off from work.
PRE-THINKING
1. MISSING LINK: The author believes that eating at restaurants frequently/everyday leads to more absenteeism/less time given to work at the office (in the way of more sick leaves).
2. Thus, the conclusion is drawn that the cafeteria on the office premises would help reduce this absenteeism from work by a significant margin. Once the cafeteria is there on site- the employees who frequent restaurants will stop going there and eat at the cafeteria.
3. Assumption: The author assumes that with the on-site availability of the cafeteria, the employees who frequent restaurants and/or are frequently absent will significantly reduce their restaurant visits and eat at the cafeteria
4. Weakener: Employees who are prone to absenteeism are unlikely to eat at cafeterias
ANSWER CHOICE ELIMINATION
A. Employees who eat in cafeterias sometimes make personal phone calls upon returning to their work areas.
(“Sometimes” is a very vague time reference. Even employees who eat at cafeterias might make calls sometimes. Therefore, this does not weaken the argument as it does not signify a significant increase in time away from work. This choice is out of scope.
Incorrect Choice)
B. Employees who are frequently absent are the least likely to eat in a company cafeteria.
(This is in line with our pre-thought weakener.
Correct Choice)
C. Employees who eat in company cafeterias usually eat more healthy meals at home.
(The argument hints at the idea that eating at restaurants perhaps make the employees sick and they take leaves. Less healthy meals at cafeteria does not necessarily mean falling sick more frequently. Moreover, the comparison is between employees eating at restaurants and employees eating at cafeterias. The comparison is not between employees eating at restaurants and employees eating healthy meals at home. This choice is actually irrelevant.
Incorrect Choice.)
D. Employees who eat in company cafeterias use their working time no more productively than those who eat restaurant meals.
(This choice goes on to make certain assumptions. This choice links time spent at work with productivity. However, this choice does not suggest that the employees eating at the cafeteria will spend more time at work than the ones who eat at restaurants.
Even then, let’s say, by eating at cafeterias employees do spend more time working. Even then, the following situations arise
“No more productively” has two implications
1. Equally productively- more time spent on work with equal productivity actually supports the setting up of cafeterias
2. Less productively – more time spent on work but less productively weakens the idea of setting up cafeterias.
This ambiguous impact makes this choice incorrect.
Incorrect Choice)
E. Employees who eat in company cafeterias tend to take more frequent breaks in the morning and afternoon than those who eat their lunch in restaurants.
(This choice does not address the issue of absenteeism and is therefore out of scope.
Incorrect Choice)
08 Mar 2026, 11:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
There was a causal assumption here
Saying - Restaurants Lunches leads --> more sick days/more absenteeism (Casual Link)
So conclusion, in house cafeteria --> lead to less sick days
Weakened casual link can be opposite or a third factor
On opposite it becomes - More absenteeism is leading to Restaurants Lunches , this option B is supporting of - "Employees who are frequently absent are the least likely to eat in a company cafeteria."
Saying - Restaurants Lunches leads --> more sick days/more absenteeism (Casual Link)
So conclusion, in house cafeteria --> lead to less sick days
Weakened casual link can be opposite or a third factor
On opposite it becomes - More absenteeism is leading to Restaurants Lunches , this option B is supporting of - "Employees who are frequently absent are the least likely to eat in a company cafeteria."
