To counter the problem of low employee retention, some fast food compa

Question

To counter the problem of low employee retention, some fast food companies have come up with the solution of hiring senior citizens, people who typically have a very low attrition rate. However, the time taken by senior citizens to service an order is higher than average. Thus, for most fast food chains the gain in employee retention will not compensate for the increase in fewer customers served on an average and the resultant decrease in profits.

Which of the following, if true, taken together with the information given above supports the assertion that hiring retired people will probably not become an industry-wide feature?

(A) The government has laws under which companies cannot refuse employment to senior citizens purely on the basis of their age.

(B) Surveys indicate that senior citizens are generally more patient while dealing with customers than employees of other age-groups are.

(C) Only the most successful fast-food companies initiated the employment of senior citizens to counter the problem of low employee retention

(D) By law, senior citizens are entitled to the most comprehensive employer sponsored insurance plans.

(E) On average the difference between the time taken by other employees to service an order and that taken by senior citizens is three minutes.

rosalynd · Answer

Option D is the best answer because it provides a valid reason why fast-food companies may not hire senior citizens despite their low attrition rate. The law mandates that senior citizens receive the most comprehensive employer-sponsored insurance plans, which could significantly increase labor costs for companies. The other options do not directly address the issue of labor costs or do not provide a compelling reason why hiring senior citizens may not become an industry-wide feature.

nikchopra · Answer

why is the answer not C over here?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

C just tells us where the initiative began. It doesn't give us any reason to believe that less-successful companies would have a harder time staffing senior citizens, or any indication (beyond the premises) that it would be problematic for them to do so. We need some additional reason that hiring seniors would be difficult, costly, or damaging to profits, and that's what D provides.

nikchopra

why is the answer not C over here?

yugamjayant · Answer

Why is E not a good option here, it backs the claim made in the argument with data, "the time taken by senior citizens to service an order is higher than average", also If D is the correct response here, how can someone assume that giving employer sponsored insurance programme is a strengthening statement for the conclusion?

@Bunel

@Bunel

temporeincidunt · Answer

Correct answer: E
Why E is right
The argument says hiring senior citizens slows service, leading to fewer customers and lower profits, which outweighs retention benefits.
E quantifies the slowdown: a three-minute increase per order is large in fast food.
This makes the profit loss clearly significant, strengthening the claim that this practice won’t spread industry-wide.
Why the others are wrong
A. Laws preventing age discrimination
This affects who can be hired, not whether hiring seniors is profitable or scalable.
B. Seniors are more patient with customers
That’s a potential benefit, which actually weakens the claim.
C. Only the most successful companies tried it
This suggests weaker companies might not try it, but it doesn’t explain why the model fails.
D. Seniors require comprehensive insurance
This raises costs, but the argument is about lost customers due to slow service, not benefits expenses.
Key intuition:
To show the idea won’t spread, you need evidence that the downsides are big enough to matter.
Option E

Aawere01 · Answer

My explanation for E not being the answer is that it is open to interpretation-hence not the strongest option. 3 minutes can be very small or very big as we don't have a baseline comparison. If they would've said anywhere that 3 minutes is bad, it could be the answer.

Also for D- additional info that helps us decide and conclude that hiring senior citizens won't be very popular in the industry

Also for D- additional info that helps us decide and conclude that hiring senior citizens won't be very popular in the industry

miag · Answer

Hi,

Let's break it down:
Conclusion: Hiring senior citizens will probably not become an industry-wide feature.

We need something that shows why this practice of hiring senior citizens will not spread across the industry.
The problem with E) is that it only supports the premise but not the conclusion. It has already been mentioned that senior citizens are slower. E) doesn't tell us whether the 3 mins difference is economically significant.

D) on the other hand introduces an additional cost that applies specifically to senior citizens. It in turn tells us that even if retention improves, the overall cost structure makes this unsustainable at scale.

Hope this helps clarify!

yugamjayant

Why is E not a good option here, it backs the claim made in the argument with data, "the time taken by senior citizens to service an order is higher than average", also If D is the correct response here, how can someone assume that giving employer sponsored insurance programme is a strengthening statement for the conclusion?

@Bunel

To counter the problem of low employee retention, some fast food compa

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

To counter the problem of low employee retention, some fast food compa

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