In a study of office workers at a corporation, Australian researchers

Question

In a study of office workers at a corporation, Australian researchers found that, on average, those who spent up to 20 percent of their work day browsing the Internet for purposes that were not work-related were 9 percent more productive per hour of actual work than those who completely abstained from going online at work. The researchers concluded that frequent work breaks are rejuvenating and improve concentration, thereby increasing productivity.

Which of the following pieces of information about the workers studied would, if true, most strengthen the researchers’ argument?

A. Those who were the most productive had jobs that required them to use the Internet frequently for work-related purposes.

B. Those who took work breaks to browse the Internet were more productive than those who took equally frequent breaks away from the computer.

C. Those who abstained from going online during their work day generally took far fewer work breaks than the other workers.

D. Those who were the most productive relative to their colleagues tended to take longer work breaks than the least productive of their colleagues.

E. Those who spent more than 20 percent of their work day online were less productive, on average, than those who abstained from going online.

sayan640 · Answer

C should be the answer.
The conclusion is "work breaks ( can be any sort I.e going for a tea break or surfing internet etc ) are rejuvenating .
The premise cited is :- One example where the workers browsing internet proved more productive than the workers who abstained from internet.
Option C strengthens by saying that the workers who abstained from internet not just stayed away from the internet but dint indulge in too many other forms of breaks also. They took far fewer breaks. And eventually they proved less productive. Hence the conclusion i.e "work breaks are helpful in increasing productivity and rejuvenating " gets strengthened .

Posted from my mobile device

rahulyadav123 · Answer

GMATNinja  WHY IS OPTION B WRONG

ViratKohliKaBaap · Answer

The researcher's argument is that "frequent work breaks are rejuvenating and improve concentration, thereby increasing productivity".

B) States "Those who took work breaks to browse the Internet were more productive than those who took  equally frequent breaks away from the computer "

This does not strengthen the researcher's argument, in fact it undermines their argument since it implies that work breaks are not the cause of increased productivity, rather specifically breaks to browse the internet increase productivity.

My advice here would be to carefully identify the researcher's argument word by word and evaluate the answers precisely against this.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
In a study of office workers at a corporation, Australian researchers found that, on average, those who spent up to 20 percent of their work day browsing the Internet for purposes that were not work-related were 9 percent more productive per hour of actual work than those who completely abstained from going online at work. - Background info. It mainly focuses on online breaks and their effects. 
The researchers concluded that frequent work breaks are rejuvenating and improve concentration, thereby increasing productivity. - Conclusion. The conclusion makes a giant leap to "frequent work breaks" that may include non-online related breaks, which is a gap.

Which of the following pieces of information about the workers studied would, if true, most strengthen the researchers’ argument?

A. Those who were the most productive had jobs that required them to use the Internet frequently for work-related purposes. - Weakener. Reverses the cause-effect relationship.

B.  Those who took work breaks to browse the Internet were more productive than those who took equally frequent breaks away from the computer. - This is not the gap. Distortion.

C.  Those who abstained from going online during their work day generally took far fewer work breaks than the other workers. - Yes. So overall, they took a few breaks. The argument covers online work, but this option covers the gap in general work breaks. Ok.

D.  Those who were the most productive relative to their colleagues tended to take longer work breaks than the least productive of their colleagues. - The argument already shares this. Moreover, "longer work breaks" or shorter breaks are out of scope. The main idea is whether they take frequent breaks or not. Meaning whether they take 3 or 4 or more breaks. The issue is not whether they take 30 min or 1-hour break.

E.  Those who spent more than 20 percent of their work day online were less productive, on average, than those who abstained from going online. - Weakener.

akshaypratap278 · Answer

The main confusion is between B & C.

Argument focuses more on breaks and productivity, not about going online. i.e. More frequent breaks --> More Productivity

B : Equal Work breaks and the one with more time on Interent is productive. It removes the dependency on frequent breaks (since both are equal now) and thus instead of strengthening, weakens in some way
C: Here it is quite straightforward. Lesser the online time, lesser the breaks and lesser the productivity too.

Hit Kudos if you like the solution! DM me on Linkedin (Search  Akshay Pratap Singh, Supply Chain ) for any GMAT related queries.

GMATNinja · Answer

Take another look at the wording of the conclusion:
 
Notice that there's nothing here about the breaks involving Internet browsing. Rather, the conclusion is that breaks,  in general , are beneficial. It just happens to be the case that the evidence for this claim is about Internet browsing, but it doesn't really matter if Internet browsing is a more impactful way to take a break than, say, staring out the window or eating a dozen cookies.

So (B)'s info about Internet browsing being better than other forms of breaks is irrelevant. We just want to strengthen the idea that breaks, overall, are beneficial. (B) doesn't do that, so it's out.

I hope that clears things up!

SergejK · Answer

What I found irritating with this question is that it presents a specific scenario as premise and deducts from that a general conclusion. As choice B was actually using the logic of the premise it was more tempting for me than choice C, as it compared those who go online with those who don't. Choice C clearly focusses completely on the conclusion as it strengthens the finding by showing that breaks lead to more productive workers, even though this choice does not simulate the logic behind the premise. Can we expect such questions more often? I haven't seen many of those in official mocks.

PS: I think I got it now. In this question, one can make 2 major mistakes. The first one is not identifying that the conclusion is just a general statement that uses the logic of the specific example of computer breaks to arrive at a generalized conclusion that FREQUENT work breaks lead to improved concentration leading to higher productivity. If one falls into this trap, one is likely to choose choice B, as this choice compares those taking computer breaks and those taking equally frequented but shorter breaks. The conclusion however is about the frequency hence a strengthener would need to provide a something that shows that the higher frequency is responsible for productivity not the length. The second mistake one can make is to use an additional assumption in choice D, equally like the conclusion, that the higher breaks mean that there is a higher frequency of breaks. As choice D does not mention the frequency, D cannot be correct. Hence, only choice C talks about the frequency of breaks and that the productive people took more breaks than the not so productive. I fell into the described first trap and the second time around into the second.

JoeKan1234 · Answer

A weakens the conclusion. A tells us that thoses who were most productive used the internet for work-related purposes, not for taking breaks.

B has no effect on the conclusion. The way people take breaks do not impact the conclusion.

C strengthens the conclusion by eliminating a weakness. If those who didn't use the internet actually took breaks not fewer than those who used the internet, then it will disprove the conclusion that taking breaks will enhance productivity.

D gives an extreme example. But an extreme example cannot reliably strenghen the conclusion.

E weakens the conclusion.

exuberantvivek · Answer

As you mentioned "And eventually they proved less productive", how are you concluding that eventially they proved less productive. Option 'C' no where talks about the impact of productvity of the breaks so I am not sure how it is strenthening the argument.

SergejK · Answer

I just copy this also down here, maybe this will help:

In this question, one can make 2 major mistakes. The first one is not identifying that the conclusion is just a general statement that uses the logic of the specific example of computer breaks to arrive at a generalized conclusion that  FREQUENT  work breaks lead to improved concentration leading to higher productivity. If one falls into this trap, one is likely to choose choice B, as this choice compares those taking computer breaks and those taking equally frequented but shorter breaks. The conclusion however is about the frequency hence a strengthener would need to provide a something that shows that the higher frequency is responsible for productivity not the length. The second mistake one can make is to use an additional assumption in choice D, equally like in the conclusion, that the higher breaks mean that there is a higher frequency of breaks. As choice D does not mention the frequency, D cannot be correct. Hence, only choice C talks about the frequency of breaks and that the productive people took more breaks than the not so productive.

A_Nishith · Answer

The question asks which piece of information would most strengthen the researchers' argument that frequent work breaks, such as browsing the Internet for non-work-related purposes, are rejuvenating and improve concentration, thereby increasing productivity.

Let's analyze the options:

A. Those who were the most productive had jobs that required them to use the Internet frequently for work-related purposes.
-->This option discusses the relationship between productivity and the need to use the Internet for work-related purposes. However, it doesn't directly address the argument about breaks improving productivity, so it doesn't strengthen the argument.

B. Those who took work breaks to browse the Internet were more productive than those who took equally frequent breaks away from the computer.
-->This option suggests that workers who took breaks to browse the Internet were more productive than those who took equally frequent breaks away from the computer. This would strengthen the argument that browsing the Internet specifically, as a form of break, is more effective at improving productivity than other types of breaks. This is a strong contender.

C. Those who abstained from going online during their work day generally took far fewer work breaks than the other workers.
-->This option states that those who abstained from going online took fewer work breaks. This would imply that it's the frequency of breaks, rather than the specific activity of browsing, that contributes to increased productivity. This strengthens the researchers' argument by supporting the idea that taking breaks is important.

D. Those who were the most productive relative to their colleagues tended to take longer work breaks than the least productive of their colleagues.
-->This option mentions that the most productive workers took longer breaks. However, this doesn't directly support the idea that frequent breaks improve productivity, as it focuses on the duration rather than the frequency or type of breaks.

E. Those who spent more than 20 percent of their work day online were less productive, on average, than those who abstained from going online.
-->This option says that spending more than 20 percent of the workday online is associated with lower productivity. While this suggests that there is a limit to how much time can be spent online before productivity decreases, it doesn't directly strengthen the argument that taking breaks, specifically in the form of browsing, improves productivity.

Best Answer: C.  This option directly strengthens the researchers' argument by suggesting that taking more frequent breaks (including browsing the Internet) is associated with higher productivity.

Dbrunik · Answer

In a study of office workers at a corporation, Australian researchers found that, on average, those who spent up to 20 percent of their work day browsing the Internet for purposes that were not work-related were 9 percent more productive per hour of actual work than those who completely abstained from going online at work. The researchers concluded that frequent work breaks are rejuvenating and improve concentration, thereby increasing productivity.

Which of the following pieces of information about the workers studied would, if true, most strengthen the researchers’ argument?

synopsis:  There are really only two things going on in this argument. 1. there is an observation presented about people who do and do not take breaks to use the internet for non work related purposes. and 2. the CONCLUSION that frequent breaks increase productivity. note however, that the conclusion says nothing about what is done during the breaks, or even if it involves the internet, just that frequent breaks themselves yield a certain outcome ( increased productivity).

A. Those who were the most productive had jobs that required them to use the Internet frequently for work-related purposes.

B. Those who took work breaks to browse the Internet were more productive than those who took equally frequent breaks away from the computer.

C. Those who abstained from going online during their work day generally took far fewer work breaks than the other workers.

This could strengthen the idea that breaks increase productivity, since we know the group that abstained underperformed. if they are not indeed taking breaks, then it would be in line with the conclusion that breaks increase productivity. These people are less productive, and they are taking less breaks.

D. Those who were the most productive relative to their colleagues tended to take longer work breaks than the least productive of their colleagues.

E. Those who spent more than 20 percent of their work day online were less productive, on average, than those who abstained from going online.

sahanagoel · Answer

I have gone over multiple explanations for why C is right. All of them say that the option says that ppl who abstained from browsing took fewer breaks (which implies less productivity). However, I am just not able to arrive at the conclusion using C. It just says that ppl who abstained from internet browsing took fewer breaks.

Where does it mention that they are less productive? Can someone pls explain this. What am I missing?

Where does it mention that they are less productive? Can someone pls explain this. What am I missing?

Hitesh0701 · Answer

You are missing one critical point from the premise :"productivity per hour of actual work".
 C. Those who abstained from going online during their work day generally took far fewer work breaks than the other workers. 
Lets say those abstained from going online took more work breaks than other workers. In that case, even if both generates same ouput. Those who took more breaks and eventually worked for lesser amount of time will show that they have worked more than those who used internet.
Hence by mentioning about the frequency of work breaks, we are strengthening the argument.

Take some numbers you will get it!

I hope this makes sense to you.

Best,
Hitesh

GMATNinja · Answer

The study compares two groups: Group 1 spent up to 20 percent of their work day browsing the Internet for purposes that were not work-related. Group 2 completely abstained from going online at work. It turns out that Group 1 was 9% more productive per hour of actual work than Group 2, so the researchers concluded that frequent work breaks are rejuvenating and improve concentration, thereby increasing productivity. So the researchers are concluding that Group 1 was more productive because they took more frequent work breaks, but there's a problem with that. We only know how the groups compare with respect to one SPECIFIC type of work break: browsing the Internet for purposes that are not work-related. What about OTHER types of work breaks? Maybe if we include ALL types of work breaks (not just Internet browsing), Group 2 actually spends a greater portion of their work day taking breaks. Perhaps, for example, Group 2 spends 40% of the work day going out for coffee or eating doughnuts.

If, factoring in all types of breaks, Group 2 spends a greater portion of the work day taking breaks than Group 1, the researcher's argument falls apart. In that case, Group 2 would be LESS productive even though they spend MORE time on break. The scenario just described would hurt the argument, but choice (C) assures us that Group 2 is in fact the group that took fewer work breaks. So (C) strengthens the argument by eliminating a possibility that would hurt the argument. I hope that helps!

Nipunh · Answer

need an expert solution for the same, a little tricky to eliminate between c and d.

kvnna · Answer

I'm no expert but I was able to eliminate "D" because its implying that the "effect" occurred before the "cause", that is those who were most productive actually took longer breaks, not that the breaks helped them be more productive which is what the conclusion is arguing.

egmat · Answer

The Argument's Structure: 
 
 Study shows: Internet browsers were  9%  more productive than abstainers 
 Conclusion: Frequent  BREAKS  cause this productivity gain

The Gap:  Study compares  Internet use  → Conclusion claims  breaks  matter

But, how do we know abstainers didn't also take breaks (just not online)?

What We Need:  Evidence that the productivity gap IS explained by break frequency

Why (C) is the answer:  
(C) tells us abstainers took  FAR FEWER BREAKS 
This means:
 
 Browsers = More breaks = Higher productivity 
 Abstainers = Fewer breaks = Lower productivity  
The conclusion now  follows directly  from the evidence. Gap closed! ✓

Why (D) Fails - Two Fatal Flaws:  
 Flaw #1: Wrong Variable 
 
 Argument: break  FREQUENCY  matters 
 (D) talks about: break  LENGTH  
 These aren't the same thing!

Flaw #2: Wrong Comparison Groups 
 
 Study compares: Browsers vs. Abstainers 
 (D) compares: Productive vs. Unproductive workers generally 
 (D) tells us  nothing  about the abstainer group in this study!

prgoud · Answer

I understand now.

For the ones confused, the Those who obstained, is not from a new sample but from the same unique sample as in the premise of the arguement. They are talking about that group in the study in particulr, the framing of the Question would have been better if they were given some sort of sample ID as A/B.

In a study of office workers at a corporation, Australian researchers

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

In a study of office workers at a corporation, Australian researchers

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