Working shorter workweeks causes managers to feel less stress than does working longer workweeks. In addition, greater perceived control over one's work life reduces stress levels. It can be concluded, therefore, that shorter workweeks cause managers to feel they have more control over their work life.
The argument made above uses which of the following questionable techniques?
(A) Associating two conditions as cause and effect on the basis of their being causally associated with the same phenomenon
(B) Taking for granted that two factors that have a certain effect individually produce that effect more strongly when both act together.
(C) Assuming what it sets out to prove
(D) Using an irrelevant point in order to draw a conclusion
(E) Basing a conclusion on preconceived views about the needs of managers
My explanation -
The argument says
(i) that working shorter work weeks leads to less stress
(ii) more control over work life leads to less stress
The author is trying to conclude here that two independent events which lead to the same effect are the cause and effect of each other.
(A) Correct as explained above
(B) The argument does not say that both the events when put together act more strongly. It is trying to form a cause - effect relation between the 2 events. Incorrect
(C) Incorrect, no assumption stated
(D) As explained in (B), it forms a cause-effect relationship in the conclusion
(E) The events are not preconceived notions of the managers. Not stated in the argument. Incorrect
Happy to know if anyone has any thoughts on my explanation