I was confused b/w d and e but since e only compares their break times, is not sufficient to ponder upn

IMO D. since eating at restaurants and cafe leads to same wastage of time.

IMO B .

Conclusion :- Therefore, if companies started to offer on-site cafeterias, the absentee rate in those companies would decrease significantly

So B is the only option that weakens the argument , the author concludes that if company cafeteria is there then people will not go to restaurant and hence the absentee rate wud decrease .

Now Option B says that the people who are frequently absent that is those who visit restaurant are less likel y to eat at company cafeteria ....... so the plan of cafeteria is flop if the people for whom it is done are not gonna eat there .

Hope that helps.

With these weaken questions, I think two big strategies are important:

1) As AIM GMAT did perfectly, make sure to note the specific conclusion in question! This one is about the "absentee rate" - the number of days that people miss - and not about "wasted time" within a day of attendance. We need to specifically weaken that conclusion that the absentee rate will decrease.

2) Think about the gap in logic between the premises and the conclusion. The premise is that:

People who eat out for lunch take more sick days than those who don't

Leading to the conclusion:

We should build a cafeteria so that people won't take sick days


Where's the gap?

Nowhere do we know that anyone will actually use the cafeteria! The assumption is "if you build it, they will come", but that's a big assumption. Choice B plays on that logical flaw by saying that "those who are frequently absent are not likely to use a cafeteria". B supplies evidence that the assumption the argument makes isn't necessarily true, so B weakens the argument.

Thanks Brian.

Cleared the air. Would love to see/attempt more such questions.

Brian, I found your feedback supportive of the answers to this CR entry - although the answers posted just duplicated and restated OA choice in more verbose way...

OK, the clue is lying with Cause-Effect relationship here,
Rule 1: Demolish the cause if initially stated in the conclusion (remember?)
Rule 2: Admire the cause if initially stated in premises, evidences...

Now break/down the argument which requires weakening - just in case we don't overrun other issues, assumptions are good enough but we can't pick them in and use them any time for strengthen OR weaken questions, why to limit ourselves - we got plenty other stuff -like cause-effect, conditional setting, logical fallacies, etc... every known move brings new tactics

The less frequently employees leave the office for a restaurant lunch each week - the fewer sick days they take.

Even employees who reduce their number of restaurant lunches by only one per week take less sick time than those who eat lunch at restaurants every day.

on-site cafeteria VS. restaurants? sick VS. not sick?


Therefore, if companies started to offer on-site cafeterias, the absentee rate in those companies would decrease significantly. - aha, here the cause element revealed in the conclusion -never before heard of cafeteria idea in the evidence/premise portion, speculation?!

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

A Employees who eat in cafeterias sometimes make personal phone calls upon returning to their work areas. <-- shell game around cafeteria, no weaken effect

B Employees who are frequently absent are the least likely to eat in a company cafeteria. <-- actually Kill B) because cafeteria example not strengthens the argument but demolishes it

C Employees who eat in company cafeterias usually eat more healthy meals at home. <-- the same as A) and no weaken effect

D Employees who eat in company cafeterias use their working time no more productively than those who eat restaurant meals. <-- the same as A) and unclear connection with productivity

E Employees who eat in company cafeterias tend to take more frequent breaks in the morning and afternoon than those who eat their lunch in restaurants. <-- the same as A) and plus more vigor is exerted onto statement speculated in the conclusion