Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

Scroll for the OA A

I dont remember exactly. But I think it is from 1000 CR. OA is A
Anyways, its a poorly written question.
Check this post:
http://www.beatthegmat.com/1000-cr-terst-b-q-no-15-t1503.html

_________________
"Once you start working on something,
don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it.
People who work sincerely are the happiest."
Chanakya quotes (Indian politician, strategist and writer, 350 BC-275BC)

In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only
Sttmnt 1 can be inferred frm The Bolded part
The stimulus says that the Job security should be reduced by making it easier to fire the Civil Service employees.The stimlus nowhere says that more Govt workers should be fired if you want more efficiency.
The Stmulus nowhere says Most government workers are Civil Service employees.

I completely agree with the above explanation for III. Civil Service employees COULD do 99% of the work, yet only make up 5% of the workforce. Thus this does not need to be true. However I. HAS to be true because if the author DID not believe too much job security CAN have a negative influence on workers, then the author can't lead to the conclusion that government is inefficient because C.S. employees loaf.

Tricky problem!, but I think the answer is A.

I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on works. This is a very close and logical flow from the statement, which makes two distinct points--firstly, that Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, and secondly, that because they know how hard it is to be fired they tend to loaf. Therefore, their job security causes them to underperform.

II. More government workers should be fired. This can not be confirmed in the statement, because the final sentence is unclear about which statement explains why the government is so inefficient. Is it because it costs up to $100,000 just to fire someone OR is it because people loaf due to job security? It's too ambiguous to tell.

III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees. There is no reference to number at all in the statement.

Therefore, A.

B
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers. (Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf)
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees. (the government is so inefficient.)

the answer is simply A. Here is why:
I - author is stating it directly in the text "Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf"
II - It is not mentioned anywhere (only playing with republicans' emotions )
III - Author says that because civil servants loaf around, the government is inefficient... it doesn't talk about numbers/ratios anywhere. Author doesn't say that civil servants are majority or minority etc.



In the effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
It can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.
(A) I only
(B) I and III only
(C) II only
(D) I, II, and III
(E) III only

_________________
---------------------------------
Everything is possible in this world. Even the word Impossible says - I'm possible

I am still not sure about III, if government if inefficient due to civil service employees, why can't I infer that most of the employees are from civil service.
Are we ignoring III because the statement could be true or false?

Thanks

Yes, this is correct. We are given info about the productivity levels but not numbers. It is possible that civil servants are few in numbers but they cause much more inefficiencies in the system (e.g. because they don't work, folks below them in hierarchy don't work either and so on, causing total inefficiency). It is also possible that civil servants are majority in govt. causing govt. to be inefficient.

_________________
---------------------------------
Everything is possible in this world. Even the word Impossible says - I'm possible

my answer is option A.no other option provides a more suitable inference from the passage.

Clearly the answer is A

I agree as discussed above that there is no mention about the numbers. Let's try to think this way isn't it possible for very few Civil Service employees (say less than 50 percent) who are the reason for all the damage caused to the government.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please "THANK" if you like my explanation :p

The last line This explains in large part why the government is so inefficient.
Isn't the word 'this' pointing to the first 2 sentences which talks about the Civil service employees only. So why should III be left out ?

What's the OA?

Thanks.

only 1 . 10 seconds

Only 1 can be inferred from the passage...option 3 seems far fetched.