The management of a magazine recently divided its staff of

Question

The management of a magazine recently divided its staff of writers into two groups based on whether the writers took more than six breaks daily. A higher percentage of those writers who took more than six breaks a day had problems producing article ideas than did the writers who took six breaks or fewer. The management of the magazine concluded that taking more than six breaks per day causes writers to be less productive.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion above?

The writers who took more than six breaks daily produced, on average, more articles than did the other writers who took less than six breaks daily. 
 
 Some of the writers who took fewer than six breaks daily produced large numbers 
of article ideas. 
 
 A diminished output of article ideas was the reason that some of the writers who 
took fewer than six breaks daily lowered the amount of breaks that they took per day. 
 
 Some writers took breaks of only one minute each, while other writers took breaks 
of up to twenty minutes each. 
 
 Frustration over the low production of article ideas caused some of the writers already taking more than six breaks a day to take even more frequent breaks.

abhijit_sen · Answer

I will go with A, as it counter acts the point given in question. Question says writer who take more breaks are less productive. However A is exactly opposite to it and says writer who take more breaks produces more articles so valid counter attack to weaken the logic.

ashkrs · Answer

C for me.

moni77 · Answer

At first I went with A, but after I saw your post yes I think C is better. A talkes about average produced more articles, but the management considers articles ideas in measuring the productivity.

05rose · Answer

I was not too sure but after several reference i think it is C. Correct me if i am wrong.

walker · Answer

I guess E.

The argument:
cause: taking more breaks
effect: problems producing article ideas

Conclusion: The management of the magazine concluded that  taking more than six breaks  per day  causes  writers  to be less productive .

E.
vise-versa. It destroys the conclusion.
cause: problems producing article ideas
effect: taking more breaks

giantSwan · Answer

OA is A.

maverick101 · Answer

I chose E too, because there is another explanation for taking breaks which weakens the conclusion.

moni77 · Answer

It was a tricky question. I couldn't decide between A and C, but even after I said it's C I wasn't convinced. I think A it's correct because the conclusion is about peolpe who take more than 6 breaks and because of that are less productive. C says that people who take less or 6 breaks had a diminished output of ideas and that's the reson for not taking breaks. This answer doens't help us to weaken the conclusion, or has no effect on the conclusion, about why people that take more breaks are less productive. Even if the people with less than 6 breaks have a level of diminished of article ideeas it doesn't mean that have less ideas that people who take more than 6 breaks.
A says that even if they take more than 6 breaks they produced more articles that the others, which weakenes tha conclusion that they are less productive.
It the pattern: even if the cause occur, the effect doens't occur.

walker · Answer

What is wrong with E?
What is source of CR?

stopper5 · Answer

I chose A.

"The management of the magazine concluded that taking more than six breaks per day causes writers to be less productive."

no where does it state that having less ideas means someone is less productive. You can produce more articles but with less ideas and that'll still mean you're productive - probably not creative.

pmenon · Answer

i chose A as well. C says that people who were already taking more than 6 brks a day are now just taking more breaks. It doesnt weaken the conclusion that people who take more than 6 breaks are less productive.

terp26 · Answer

Walker,

E states:

"Frustration over the low production of article ideas caused some of the writers already taking more than six breaks a day to take even more frequent breaks."

These people are already taking 6 breaks a day. It's hard to explain but it is cause and effect. They aren't less productive because they are taking a break as the argument concludes. They are less productive already so they take more breaks.

I am going to post something in the forum from LSAT CR Bible that I found really helpful. In my opinion it's probably the most helpful CR help I have come across.

Part of it is the fact that Some, on a 0-100 scale can mean 1 to 100 so if you substitute 1 person for some, you can see how that really does not weaken anything.

Using this approach you can eliminate all 4 wrong choices off the bat if you substitute the 1 worker for some workers

walker · Answer

Thanks. It is obvious. :wall

+1

giantSwan · Answer

The source is a sample practice test from the Princeton Review. This is a question I answered incorrectly, so I sympathize!

The management of a magazine recently divided its staff of

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