Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta

Question

Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs will bolster corporate profits and the national economy. The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently and work additional overtime, in the absence of now-underutilized personnel. This increase in national productivity will cause new positions to spring up with the healthier economy, providing new openings for those who were made jobless.
 
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the economist's prediction above?

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.
 
(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.
 
(C) Some economists predict that the national economy will substantially improve in the next two years even without drastic reductions in payroll costs.
 
(D) If corporations reduce the number of employees, the average number of employees per company will decrease.
 
(E) Many of the new positions in a restructured economy would be lower-paying than those lost during the restructuring.

asandeep · Answer

I would go with B.

B says - 
Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

Here, the key word is "effectively", not the fact that the number is at minimum.
If the number of employees are just enough to do the job "effectively", you cannot reduce the number further.

Option A says that, the hours will not be "as productive as" regular hours, nonetheless, the additional hours will be productive (even if less).

dj · Answer

will go with B
A) additional hrs will not be 'as productive', but surely will increase the productive hrs. author also confers this..
B)if most corporations are working with their minimum required workforce..if they lay-off, they will be compromising with the productivity.
C)out of scope
D)who cares about this consideration?
E)no mention of the wage range or anything. out of scope

Geethu · Answer

Official explanation:

The conclusion in this argument is in the first sentence: reducing employees will increase profits and improve the economy in general. The author then explains how this will happen. Choice (B) undermines this line of thinking by pointing out that what the author suggests is wrong.

Source : Got it in one of the kaplan tests.

Praetorian · Answer

B is best.

if they are already at their minimum, they wont be able to cut costs by a reduction in the workforce.

aaronmatt · Answer

Go to "B"  Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

Prateek176 · Answer

AjiteshArun  ,  Bunuel  ,  abhimahna  ,  MartyMurray

I am still having trouble eliminating A.

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

How does this not cast a doubt on the conclusion. The additional hours won't be as productive as they could have been. But there will be an increase in productivity no matter how small. That's one part. But not to mention our labour force is also getting downsized. Can't this mean that resultant productivity is getting reduced. Wouldn't then the choice be a classic weakener.

Please help. Also provide a reason why B is better than A

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

The wording of A is not as clear as it could be. So, we have to carefully look at both A and the argument to see why A does not really weaken the argument.

The argument states the following as fact:

The remaining employees will, by necessity, operate more efficiently

In a well written Weaken question, the answer choices will not make statements that conflict with the supporting facts presented in the passage. However, they may seem to. Answer choices that seem to make statements that contradict the statements made in the passage are trap choices that seem to be weakeners but do not truly weaken the argument.

Now, let's consider choice A.

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

Hmm. This choice seems to contradict the statement made in the passage. It seems to indicate that the remaining employees will be less productive rather than more productive if some employees are laid off. It doesn't really though. A is a trap choice.

Choice A is actually not a comparison of the productivity of employees before and after the layoffs. It is only a comparison between the productivity of employees during regular hours and the productivity of employees during overtime hours.

The passage makes clear that the employees will work more efficiently if some are laid off. All A indicates is that the remaining employees wouldn't work as productively during overtime hours as they would during regular hours. It could still be the case that they would work more efficiently during regular hour AND during overtime hours than they would without the layoffs. So, the truth is that A does not weaken the argument at all.

Now let's consider B.

(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

While the structure of the passage is a little weak, the first sentence of the passage seems to be the conclusion. If the first sentence is the conclusion, then B weakens the conclusion, because B indicates that, even if the remaining employees were to work more efficiently, corporations simply won't be able to operate effectively if they lay off employees, and so drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate staffs would not bolster corporate profits and the national economy but, rather, result in a reduction of corporate profits.

So, the correct answer is B.

khera · Answer

(B) is correct, as it shows how the author’s plan would not work: if corporations already have the minimum number of employees they need, then getting rid of employees would take away that necessity, and the company wouldn't actually operate effectively.

(A) is an irrelevant comparison. Even if the overtime hours will be less efficient than the non-overtime hours, the regular hours could remain as productive as usual. Then, the overtime (even if it's not quite as productive) would still provide additional hours and extra productivity.

(C) brings in irrelevant information, that the economy will substantially improve without employee reductions. This doesn't weaken the argument, as it's possible that this author's recommendation would improve the economy more quickly and/or substantially than if no action were taken.

(D) simply provides a statistical result of reducing staff levels, and doesn't address the economist's conclusion.

(E) focuses on the impact on the people who lost their jobs and got new ones. The fact that these new jobs would pay less than the previous jobs is bad for these individuals, but does nothing to address whether the plan will work. This is incorrect.

TAKEAWAY: If an author thinks a particular plan will lead to success, weaken it by showing that the terms of the plan might not lead to the expected result.

Sahith_Manikanta · Answer

KarishmaB   Bunuel   chetan2u , please help in providing answer to this question. According to the argument, the Economist prediction is Company profits and economy will increase (or) productivity of remaining employees will increase if some employees are laid off. A is not my favorite option, but rest of the options do not seem to weaken the prediction at all. How can B be OA - the Economist is predicting certain outcome will happen if certain event occurs (corporations laid off people). B says that the event already occurred, and outcome of this event is not mentioned. If we want to weaken I feel that this option needs to be mentioned with some outcome saying something like even with employees laid off, productivity or economy did not increase (although then the answer will be pretty direct). Please help me how it is attacking author's prediction.

KarishmaB · Answer

The answer (B) makes sense. Look here:

Economist: Cut costs by laying off employees. Leftover employees will work more and hence productivity (amount of work done per employee) will increase.
This increase in national productivity will generate new positions for laid off employees.

What could be a problem here? 
(B) Most corporations are already at the minimum number of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

If most corps are already at the minimum number, how will they manage after laying off employees? It means that after lay off, the existing employees will not be able to handle extra work (say if all of them already work 18 hrs a day!!).
Hence the plan fails.

We are not given that the plan was already executed. The plan is simply to lay off some employees (whatever the current status).

(A) If employees work longer hours, the additional hours will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

Still, since they will work longer hours, even if later hours are less productive, overall the employee will be more productive. If he did 10 units of work per hour for 8 hours, now he will do 10 units per hour for 8 hours and say 6 units per hour for the next 2 hours. He is still doing more work per day than before and hence is more productive.

(A) is incorrect.

Sahith_Manikanta · Answer

I get it now. Thanks a lot Karishma. I was thinking in a different direction and got confused.

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: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta

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: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing corporate sta

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