CR Strengthen: Employee morale
I think that answer A is 50%, A seems to be an assumption rather than strengthen argument. However, D only mentioned reducing wage that will lead to the resignation of some labors. This do not mean that layoffs damage morale less. Therefore, choose A is a correct answer.
-
prashant misra
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:39 pm
-
ronnie1985
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:50 am
- Location: Ahmedabad
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:10 members
(A) ... really difficult CR question
Follow your passion, Success as perceived by others shall follow you
-
parulmahajan89
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:06 pm
In this case Answer choice seems more like an assumption then strengthener. So what is the good strategy to approach right answer
Thank you
Parul Mahajan
Thank you
Parul Mahajan
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.
[Argument: Both damage morale, but layoffs damage it less, since the aggrieved have, after all, left.
Result: Thus, when companies must reduce personnel costs during recessions, they are likely to lay off employees.
We need to find the link between the argument and the result.
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.
Correct answer. Links the argument and result and strengthens the argument. If morale is the key concern and laying off has lesser impact on morale then laying off is the best option.
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees.
Incorrect and out of context.
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs.
Incorrect and out of context.
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign.
Incorrect. Provides further information on the impact of cutting wages but does not link the result and argument.
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed.
Incorrect and out of context
OA after some Reply..
LSAT Set 56 CR
-
Ganesh hatwar
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:23 pm
-
chris558
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:07 am
- Followed by:1 members
Prmise: During recession, 2 ways to cut costs: laying off without reducing wages, or reducing wages without laying off
Premise: Both damange morale, but layoffs damage less
Conclusion: companies likely to lay off employees when they must reduces personnel costs during recessions.
Underlying assumption: companies are concerned about choosing an optino that least damages employee morale.
Strenthen question
a) this reiterates our assumption, which further strengthens the conclsuion.
b) not relate to conclusion
c) not related to conclusion...
d) employees resinging is not related to conclusion
e) unlreated to conclusion!
Answer is obv A!
Premise: Both damange morale, but layoffs damage less
Conclusion: companies likely to lay off employees when they must reduces personnel costs during recessions.
Underlying assumption: companies are concerned about choosing an optino that least damages employee morale.
Strenthen question
a) this reiterates our assumption, which further strengthens the conclsuion.
b) not relate to conclusion
c) not related to conclusion...
d) employees resinging is not related to conclusion
e) unlreated to conclusion!
Answer is obv A!
-
harshkhemka88
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:47 pm
- Followed by:1 members
The question asks us to "Strengthen the Reasoning", not to Strengthen the argument/conclusion. Isn't it an Assumption question then?
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 - It is prior to decision of cost cutting but it does not address the issue that why Laying off is better
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees - No mention of instances for increasing the wages
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs - Profits are not center of discussion.
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign - Even if after cutting personnel cost, people leave then this is not good starategy. But it does not address why other strategy i.e. laying off people is better.
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed - Seems correct
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 - It is prior to decision of cost cutting but it does not address the issue that why Laying off is better
(B) In general, companies increase wages only when they are unable to find enough qualified employees - No mention of instances for increasing the wages
(C) Some companies will be unable to make a profit during recessions no matter how much they reduce personnel costs - Profits are not center of discussion.
(D) When companies cut personnel costs during recessions by reducing wages, some employees usually resign - Even if after cutting personnel cost, people leave then this is not good starategy. But it does not address why other strategy i.e. laying off people is better.
(E) Some companies that have laid off employees during recessions have had difficulty finding enough qualified employees once economic growth resumed - Seems correct
-
nikhilgmat31
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 8:25 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
I think answer should be D. which says - if company reduces the wage then employee with leave the job & may be possible that all employees will leave. so company will pick guys & lay off them.
argument clearly says due to recession & cost saving, company needs to either lay off or reduce wage.
As per A ) - Employee morale drives whether a employee will be layed off or his wage will be reduced.
It is nowhere mentioned in A as higher employee morale will stay in company & lower morale guy is forced to leave the job.
argument clearly says due to recession & cost saving, company needs to either lay off or reduce wage.
As per A ) - Employee morale drives whether a employee will be layed off or his wage will be reduced.
It is nowhere mentioned in A as higher employee morale will stay in company & lower morale guy is forced to leave the job.
