Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone. Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist's reasoning?
(A) Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies' decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages.
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees.
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs.
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed.
OA after some Reply..
LSAT Set 56 CR
CR Strengthen: Employee morale
- Target2009
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:5 members
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1337
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:29 pm
- Thanked: 127 times
- Followed by:10 members
I shall pick D here, as the strengthen part of CR entry requires me to state the assumption perceived from reading this passage:
I assume that the author emphasizes resolution of personnel cuts with any possible means to satisfy the remaining employees - thus avoid their resignation - and it's not as much important what will happen with the employee morale, as one will deteriorate anyway...
I assume that the author emphasizes resolution of personnel cuts with any possible means to satisfy the remaining employees - thus avoid their resignation - and it's not as much important what will happen with the employee morale, as one will deteriorate anyway...
- bblast
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 am
- Thanked: 118 times
- Followed by:33 members
- GMAT Score:710
IMO D
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.
A is the only one which threatens D but A is more of an assumption to this arguement that a strengthen arguement.
Reminds me of a tip on strengthen/assumption question in the powerscore (I dont think these can be applied here):
answers with :
at least some
at least few
some
Are usually correct.
answers with :
primary purpose
top priority
main factor
are usually wrong.
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.
A is the only one which threatens D but A is more of an assumption to this arguement that a strengthen arguement.
Reminds me of a tip on strengthen/assumption question in the powerscore (I dont think these can be applied here):
answers with :
at least some
at least few
some
Are usually correct.
answers with :
primary purpose
top priority
main factor
are usually wrong.
Cheers !!
Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40
My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40
My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:59 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Target2009
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:5 members
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:45 pm
- Location: Boston
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:720
Target2009 wrote:Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone. Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.
Conclusion - laying employees off is a better option for cutting costs (to maintain higher level of morale in the company)
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist's reasoning?
(A) Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies' decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages.
If employee morale is the primary concern, a layoff is better than a reduction in overall pay. Thus it strengthens the argument that one must lay employees off. correct
If employee morale were not of concern, both mass pay-reduction and selected layoff would be equally preferable solution.
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees.
Incorrect. Argument is about saving money for the company. Irrelevant (since the choice talks about increase in wages)
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs
Incorrect. This choice is irrelevant. The argument is about saving money - whether its losing money (as in a recession) or its making huge profits.
.
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.
Incorrect. This choice actually weakens the argument. When companies reduce wages overall - they do save money. They save more money further when the employees resign. This makes it a very strong contender for a conclusion whose purpose would solely be to save money. However, the choice shows that the morale of the overall employee base goes down, so much as to make some employees to resign. The remaining employees would also have a low morale. Thus this choice weakens the argument because it save money for the company but lowers the employees' morale.
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed.
Incorrect. Irrelevant. The argument is not about future recruitment difficulties of the company.
OA after some Reply..
LSAT Set 56 CR
Last edited by stormier on Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Target2009
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:5 members
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Avoided the spoiler cos didnt wanna see the AnswerTarget2009 wrote:Mundasingh : Source already mentioned in original post
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Stormier,I think u are making an assumption that when people resign , the morale would be decreased further.stormier wrote:Target2009 wrote:Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone. Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.
Conclusion - laying employees off is a better option for cutting costs (to maintain higher level of morale in the company)
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.
Incorrect. This choice actually weakens the argument. When companies reduce wages overall - they do save money. They save more money further when the employees resign. This makes it a very strong contender for a conclusion whose purpose would solely be to save money. However, the choice shows that the morale of the overall employee base goes down, so much as to make some employees to resign. The remaining employees would also have a low morale. Thus this choice weakens the argument because it save money for the company but lowers the employees' morale.
Incorrect. Irrelevant. The argument is not about future recruitment difficulties of the company.
OA after some Reply..
LSAT Set 56 CR
I think the Author here is eliminating the option because we are not cerned about what the case is when the Company opts for a reduction in Salaries.
- maddy2u
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:45 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- GMAT Score:710
My Reasoning is as above. Hope you are benefitted.Target2009 wrote:Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone. Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist's reasoning?
(A) Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies' decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages.
Employee Morale is discussed in the stimulus above but there is no explicit statement stating that it is taken into consideration during recessions. So, this drives a point home by stating that Employee Morale is the 'Primary' Concern in decisions.
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees.
Does not Strengthen or Weaken.
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs.
Does not Strengthen or Weaken.
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.
This statement doesn't talk about laying off employees. It talks only about employees resigning by themselves. There is a world of difference between the two
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed.
Does not Strengthen or Weaken.
This is fantastic information on how to strengthen employee morale. I've written a related article on How to Reduce Employee Turnover.
The most critical thing I've learned over the last ten years is that strengthening employee morale reduces turnover, and turnover is one of the most damaging things to the morale of other employees, and eats away at budgets too.
The most critical thing I've learned over the last ten years is that strengthening employee morale reduces turnover, and turnover is one of the most damaging things to the morale of other employees, and eats away at budgets too.
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
I received a PM asking me to comment.Economist: During a recession, a company can cut personnel costs either by laying off some employees without reducing the wages of remaining employees or by reducing the wages of all employees without laying off anyone. Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist's reasoning?
In some of the posts above, the conclusion has been misidentified.
Conclusion: When companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.
Premise: Laying off employees will not damage morale as much as would reducing wages.
This argument exhibits a common flaw: a shift in language between the premise and the conclusion. The premise is about morale; the conclusion is about laying off employees. The argument assumes that these two concepts are intrinsically connected: that morale is the primary concern when deciding whether to lay off employees.
The correct answer choice will strengthen the link between morale and lay-offs. It will show that these two ideas are intrinsically connected (or it will eliminate other factors that a company might consider when deciding whether to lay off employees.)
(A) Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies' decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages. Correct. This answer choice connects morale to the decision about whether to lay off employees.
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees. Outside the scope. The argument is not about increasing wages. Eliminate B.
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs. Outside the scope. The argument is not about making a profit. Also, when answering a strengthen/weaken question, avoid the word some. Some could be as few as one or two. Such a small number would have too small an effect on the argument. Eliminate C.
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign. This answer choice could weaken the conclusion. The argument claims that the advantage of laying off employees is that the disgruntled employees will no longer work at the company, so morale will be less damaged. If reducing wages has the same effect -- if it also causes disgruntled employees to leave -- then the argument cannot claim that laying off employees will cause less damage to morale. Also, when answering a strengthen/weaken question, avoid the word some. Some employees could be as few as one or two. Such a small number would have too small an effect on the argument. Eliminate D.
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed. Outside the scope. The argument is only about what happens during a recession. Also, when answering a strengthen/weaken question, avoid the word some. Some could be as few as one or two. Such a small number would have too small an effect on the argument. Eliminate E.
The correct answer is A.
Be careful. Our job is not to determine whether the conclusion would be a good idea out here in the real world. Our only job is to analyze the reasoning in the argument: to look for the assumption and to identify how that assumption could be strengthened or weakened. Our personal opinions should have no effect on how we approach argument questions.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:49 am
- Thanked: 5 times
I do not agree at all the argument clearly mentions Recession as the reason for layoffs or cuts. If we are going to claim that Employee Moral is the primary reason for layoffs or cuts then we are actually weaking the Arguments since we are citing an alternate reasoning.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:36 pm
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left. Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.
Not bringing any outside emotion or knowledge into the argument, we can see that layoff = less morale damage is the evidence AND company during recession = layoff is the conclusion. It is easy to see that only that option, which connects the two, will strengthen the argument.
so lets look for something that says that "during recession, companies cut cost using ways that lead to least morale damage".
#A clearly states it...Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies' decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages
Not bringing any outside emotion or knowledge into the argument, we can see that layoff = less morale damage is the evidence AND company during recession = layoff is the conclusion. It is easy to see that only that option, which connects the two, will strengthen the argument.
so lets look for something that says that "during recession, companies cut cost using ways that lead to least morale damage".
#A clearly states it...Employee morale is usually the primary concern driving companies' decisions about whether to lay off employees or to reduce their wages
---------------------------------
Everything is possible in this world. Even the word Impossible says - I'm possible
Everything is possible in this world. Even the word Impossible says - I'm possible