To evaluate a plan to save money on office space expenditures by havin

Question

To evaluate a plan to save money on office space expenditures by having its employees work at home, XYZ Company asked volunteers from its staff to try the assignment for six months. During this period, the productivity of these employees was as high or higher than before.

Which of the following, if true, would argue most strongly against deciding on the basis of the trial results, to implement the company's plan?

Which of the following, if true, would argue most strongly against deciding on the basis of the trial results, to implement the company's plan?

(A) The employees who agreed to participate in the test of the plan were among the company's most self-motivated and independent workers.

(B) The savings that would accrue from reduced office-space expenditures alone would be sufficient to justify the arrangement for the company.

(C) Other companies that have achieved successful results from work-at-home plans have work forces that are substantially lower than that of XYZ.

(D) The volunteers who worked at home were able to communicate with other employees as necessary for performing at work.

(E) Minor changes in the way office work is organized at XYZ would yield increases in employee productivity similar to those achieved in the trial

ID: 500245

egmat · Accepted Answer

Passage analysis

To evaluate a plan to save money on office space expenditures by having its employees work at home, 
 A plan was made by XYZ Company.
The aim was to reduce the amount of money spent on office space costs.
The way to accomplish this was to have its employees work from home. 
 XYZ Company asked volunteers from its staff to try the assignment for six months. 
 For this the Company got its staff members to volunteer to work from home for six months. 
 During this period, the productivity of these employees was as high or higher than before. 
 The productivity of the volunteer-employees who worked from home for six months was high or high than before during the period.
 
 Conclusion 
Work from home led to high or higher productivity in the volunteer-employees of XYZ Company.

Prethinking 
 Weaken Framework 
Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the weaken framework:

What new information will make us believe less in the causality?
Cause: Working from home for 6 months
Effect: High or high than before productivity in workers who volunteered to work from home.

Given that
XYZ Company wants to check out whether their plan to save money on office space expenditures works or not.
It asked volunteers from its staff to work from home for 6 months.
The productivity of these volunteers was high or higher during this period.

Thought process

This is a classic case of improper/insufficient representation of the whole.

The conclusion is based on the performance of certain volunteer employees – representing the entire office staff.
But the implementation of the plan will be done on all the office staff.

So, what if what worked for these volunteers does not work for the rest of the staff?
In that case, the plan will fall apart or at least the plan will be less reliable.

Often, causality is weakened by showing that the effect actually preceded the cause.

In this case, it would mean showing that the volunteers were already highly productive employees. This suggests that the work-from-home could not have been the cause. They would be highly productive from wherever they worked.

Weakener  
So, if an option suggests that the employees who volunteered for the assignment were already highly productive and on their way to higher productivity, regardless of where they worked from, then it will weaken the effectiveness of the plan.

Answer Choice Analysis

Option A

This suggests that these representative employees were the kind who would be productive regardless of where they work from.
If these volunteers were the most self-motivated, then by definition the others were less so. Therefore, whether the plan would work on them as much as it did for the volunteers is doubtful.
It is not exactly worded as our weakener, but it is along those lines.
Thus, this is the correct choice.

Option B

The basis of the trial was the productivity of the employees. And we have to weaken that basis. This option does not even address that basis. It justifies the cost-saving aspect of the plan.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option C

Since the workforce numbers aren’t equal then the comparison serves no purpose to weaken the basis of the plan. It is irrelevant.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option D

This supports the plan in a way since it suggests working at home presented no problem in the required employee communication.
Thus, this is not the correct option.

Option E

This Does suggest that employees do not need to be shifted from office to work-from-home, in order to improve their productivity.
But then the aim of the plan was not to improve the productivity of the employees but to save office space costs. Hence, this option does not weaken the basis for the trial – the employee productivity when working from home is high.
Thus, this is not the correct option.

HIMALAYA · Answer

(A) The employees who agreed to participate in the test of the plan were among the company's most self-motivated and independent workers.

kayser1soze · Answer

A here as well , because these workers were high performers before and seem like by taking the out of the office they still have 'as high or higher' productivy than before so the company didnt save much if anything at all.

coffeeloverfreak · Answer

A here as well, because the argument relies on the assumption that the results of the test would be replicated in the general employee population. But A contradicts this assumption by telling us that the test segment isn't representative of the population as a whole, and that the implementation plan is likely to have lower results than the test did.

MBAPrepCoach · Answer

I would first paraphrase the question which is basically asking why is the trial stupid? I know that sounds pretty basic but honestly that's the way you can cut through this stuff. A is speaking to how representative the sample was, or wasn't in this case. It's very common on the GMAT for representativeness to come up. It's one of the key reasons that evidence can be dismissed.

Farrell Dyan Hehn, MBA
Admissions Consultant & Verbal Tutor MBAPrepCoach.com

dinhlongle · Answer

I came with A but not really satisfied with the OA.
-What is the goal here? Expenditures on office space or productivity. Yes workers who were volunteers are productive no matter where they work. But this point does not necessarily argue against the trial. However, the company does save some money for the office. If they go on and assign productive workers work-from-home tasks, bingo, save a lot.
What we can really say if A is true is that we have to ask more volunteers to test the trial to see how can it become a good move.
Please discuss more with me

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

Hey  dinhlongle , you are right that the strategy produced savings for sure, but let's carefully look at the question: we are asked about deciding  on the basis of the trial results   - that is, on the basis of the fact that productivity went up. The fact that there are savings, while true, is not relevant to the question of productivity. 
To put another way: we  don't   have to argue that the company should abandon the policy. we  do  have to argue that the fact that employees had higher productivity (and the fact only) is not a good reason to do this.

100mitra · Answer

Pharaphasing:  
  Plan:   To evaluate a plan to save money on office space expenditures by having its employees work at home, 
  Premise :   XYZ Company asked volunteers from its staff to try the assignment for six months. 
  Conclusion:   During this period, the productivity of these employees was as high or higher than before
  Argument:   The productivity of these employees was as high or higher than before

Which of the following, 
if true, 
would argue   most strongly against   deciding on the basis of the trial results, 
to implement the company's plan?
  Weaken:   Productivity of selected employees and Expense saving attempt trail are not related to each other.

(A)  The employees  who agreed to participate in the test of the plan 
were among  the company's most self-motivated and independent workers .
  Correct:  
This will weaken the trail concept of XYZ to reduce the expense.
All ready productive & best employee has no working constrain, 
so irrespective of WFH or WFO will make no difference to increase their productivity,
On other hand expense cut down saving will also no play vital role, as comparsion between motivated and non-motivated employee, productivity will not be same, other might take WFH and still will not be able to gain productivity.

(B) The savings that would accrue from  reduced office-space expenditures  
alone  would be sufficient to justify  the arrangement for the company.
  Wrong:  
Productivity and Expense saved, has no co-relation, 
This Stem only gives information about saving accure from reduced office space expenditures 
not about the Productivity of employee reason.

(C) Other companies that have achieved successful results from work-at-home plans have work forces 
that are substantially lower than that of XYZ.
  Wrong:   Irrelevant
we need comparasion details about the productivity of Employees, and expense saving,
this stem compares about XYZ and other companies.

(D) The volunteers who worked at home were able to communicate 
with other employees as necessary for performing at work.
  Wrong:  
This stem gives details about the daily working routine of an employee, 
this is irrelavant, 
this doent led to conclusion about trail plan will work or not work, or
will expense be saved or employee productivity can be improved.

(E) Minor changes in the way office work is organized at XYZ 
would yield increases in employee productivity 
similar to those achieved in the trial
  Wrong:  
This add another information about, trail success implementation in future, 
but does not share any insight for the reason / relation between productivity improved and expense saved.

woohoo921 · Answer

egmat  
Thank you for your helpful response.

To clarify, I viewed join E as incorrect on the basis that the question is asking "basis of the trial results", and this answer does not discuss anything about what could possibly be wrong with the trial results.

I see that you/the Official Guide explanation ruled out E on the basis of the goal being to save money, not to increase productivity.

However, is my thinking off or acceptable?

egmat · Answer

Hey  woohoo921

Thank you for the query.

Yes, you're right that choice E does not reveal a flaw in the trial. Instead, all choice E says is that it's possible to replicate the trial's increase in productivity even at the office with a few minor changes. But the argument is not about making improvements in productivity at the office. It's about saving costs by making employees work from home. This was why the trial was conducted in the first place, and choice E does nothing to evaluate that trial in the context of the goal of 'saving costs'.

Hope this helps.

Keep up the good work!

Happy Learning!

Abhishek

thelastskybender · Answer

AndrewN   KarishmaB  Could you please help me out with this question?

I found this question very weird as the plan talks about saving money on office space expenditures by having its employees WFH , but the conclusion talks about the productivity of these employees. Is this an intermediate conclusion and we have to derive the main conclusion from it?

Premise/IC: The productivity of these employees ↑
Conclusion: Plan is good

So we weakened the conclusion by pointing out the flaw in IC.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  thelastskybender . Your confusion seems to be stemming from a misinterpretation of the final sentence of the paragraph, which is not a conclusion. For reference, both the passage and the question:

The second line is factual information that the company will presumably take into account to decide whether employees should work from home as part of a cost-cutting measure. The question is asking us to provide a reason why it might not be such a good idea for the company to make its decision on these grounds (i.e.  on the basis of the trial results ). Although many passages end with a conclusion or argument, there are plenty of counterexamples, and this sort of evaluation setup is not uncommon.

I would always recommend sticking to just what the passage says and focusing on just what the question asks to avoid pigeonholing information and taking your thought processes in a direction that might not be tethered to the logic of the passage. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

SJKC · Answer

KarishmaB  / anyone,

could you please help me here?

Option A - I rejected A because though it says these volunteers are highly motivated & independent, which could be the reason for the results, but the Q says their productivity went  high or higher than before , meaning yes these people do have some traits that make them productive, but the plan did help them go a bit higher.

If that's the case, how does it weaken the Q asked?

Option C - Though I initially selected this as the best possible option, later on I realised that while it does seem weakening, we do not really know what results these other companies have been successful at, and so the comparison falls apart.

Is the above reasoning valid enough to reject the option?

Thank you!

egmat · Answer

SJKC If I may help here- You're correct that the productivity went "as high or higher than before," suggesting the plan helped. However, here's the crucial point you're missing: The question asks what would argue against deciding to implement the plan based on these trial results . Option A doesn't say the plan didn't work for the volunteers - it says the volunteers were unrepresentative of the general workforce. Think of it this way: Volunteers: highly self-motivated and independent General workforce: includes people with varying levels of motivation and independence Even if the plan boosted productivity for self-motivated, independent workers, we cannot conclude it will work for employees who lack these traits. Working from home likely requires exactly these qualities! The trial tested the plan on the people most likely to succeed with it, so the results tell us little about how the broader workforce will perform. This is a classic "unrepresentative sample" flaw - the weakener shows the trial results cannot be generalized to support company-wide implementation. About Option C - Your Analysis is Correct Your reasoning is spot-on. "Successful results" is too vague, and we don't know if company size actually matters for work-at-home success. This makes C a much weaker objection than A. I hope this answers your doubt. If you do have follow-up questions on this, feel free to ask

If this helps you further, you can practice similar questions here in a quiz mode or guided mode , whatever you prefer. These are all official questions - just select "Weaken" under "Critical Reasoning" and choose the difficulty as per your current prep level. All the best!

GMATQuizMaster · Answer

Hi SJKC,
Adding my bit, if it helps.

Choice A 
You are correct in saying that the plan did help them go a bit higher. However, choice A conveys that this group differs from the other employees in a specific aspect. So, what worked for this group  may not  work for the rest of the employees.

"May not" is the key inference here - it works because a weakener does not necessarily have to break the conclusion. Even if it helps you raise questions about the conclusion, it is correct!

Choice C 
I don't think your reasoning is correct.
The correct answer needs to convey -  Why should XYZ not implement WFH even though the trial results are positive .
  Choice C does not provide any reason to not rely on the trial results and that is why it is incorrect.
  
 IMO, you were not sure about what the correct answer should convey- this could be because you did not incorporate the information about positive trial results in your analysis. You were more focused on whether the plan should be implemented.

Hope this helps.

KarishmaB · Answer

XYZ ran a trial for 6 months and found that those who worked from home were as productive or even more. 
The automatic expectation then is that the company might think that working from home retain productivity or might even improve it. So they might think about switching to the WFH model.

We have to find a reason why the company should not switch to WFH based on this study. So what was not accurate in the study? Why does the study not represent an average employee of XYZ? Why can we say that same or higher productivity may not be seen by other employees?

(A) The employees who agreed to participate in the test of the plan were among the company's most self-motivated and independent workers.

The people who agreed to participate were the ones who were self-motivated and independent. This is the volunteer or self selection bias. Those who agree to participate differ from the others. They were the ones who would do well in this study since they were independent - they liked working on their own. So it is expected that their productivity stayed the same or even improved. But other people may not be like that.  
 Hence this study had a bias and that is why the company should not take a decision based on this study.

(C) Other companies that have achieved successful results from work-at-home plans have work forces that are substantially lower than that of XYZ.

Other companies are irrelevant here. We are discussing why XYZ should not plan the switch based on a study XYZ itself conducted.

To evaluate a plan to save money on office space expenditures by havin

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

To evaluate a plan to save money on office space expenditures by havin

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