BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Working Conditions

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

Working Conditions

by imskpwr » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:03 pm
A confidential survey revealed that 75 percent of the employees of Company P are dissatisfied with their jobs. However, an investigation into working conditions at the company showed nothing uncommonly bad. Therefore, Company P's consulting firm concluded that the employees' dissatisfaction must result from an unusually high incidence of psychological problems on their part.

Each of the following, if true, casts doubt on the consulting firm's conclusion EXCEPT:

In the investigation of working conditions, no account was taken of the fact that for the past year many Company P employees worked on a joint venture with Company O, at Company O's facilities.

Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions.

The consulting firm's conception of what constitutes uncommonly bad working conditions is not identical to that of Company P's employees.

The reasons given by Company P's employees for their dissatisfaction varied greatly from employee to employee.

A battery of tests performed on Company P's employees one month ago revealed no significant psychological stresses or problems

Please explain your answers.
OA and Source after discussion only
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:56 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by swg » Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:39 am
Ans - B
We need to find an ans choice that does not weaken the consulting firm's conclusion that employees' dissatisfaction must result from an unusually high incidence of psychological problems on their part.

A, C,D & E - all point out possible flaws in the consulting firm's conclusion
B is the only option left.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:26 am
any expert opinion........
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:51 am
We have to weaken the consulting firm's conclusion :

A - yes, this surely weakens. We have no information about company O's facilities - that may have contributed to the dissatisfaction of the employees.

B - this weakens too...
premise ( this is a result of a study): not bad working condition -- so this cannot be the cause for dissatisfaction.
conclusion ( Some other cause ...): dissatisfaction is from high incidence of psychological problems.

Assumptions : Working condition is a cause for dissatisfaction.

This rejects this assumption that working condition is not a cause for dissatisfaction.

X ( cause ) ---- > Y ( effect) : X not the cause, so Z is the only cause --
Z ( cause ) -----> Y (effect )

here X-Y relationship is weakened.


C - a clear weakener.

D - we are not bothered with the reasons given for dissatisfaction. This does not weakens the argument. hence this is the answer.

E - this is a clear weakener.

[spoiler]IMO : D [/spoiler]

What is the OA ?


Hope this helps !!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:08 am
avik.ch wrote:We have to weaken the consulting firm's conclusion :

B - this weakens too...
premise ( this is a result of a study): not bad working condition -- so this cannot be the cause for dissatisfaction.
conclusion ( Some other cause ...): dissatisfaction is from high incidence of psychological problems.

Assumptions : Working condition is a cause for dissatisfaction.

This rejects this assumption that working condition is not a cause for dissatisfaction.

X ( cause ) ---- > Y ( effect) : X not the cause, so Z is the only cause --
Z ( cause ) -----> Y (effect )

here X-Y relationship is weakened.


D - we are not bothered with the reasons given for dissatisfaction. This does not weakens the argument. hence this is the answer.
Argument:
Proposition 1: A confidential survey revealed that 75 percent of the employees of Company P are dissatisfied with their jobs. (FACT)

Proposition 2: However, an investigation into working conditions at the company showed nothing uncommonly bad.(Premise)

Proposition 3: Therefore, Company P's consulting firm concluded that the employees' dissatisfaction must result from an unusually high incidence of psychological problems on their part.(Conclusion)

Scope of Argument is "Company P employee dissatisfaction"

Logical Flaws/Assumptions:
1.There are only two factors responsible: Psychological problems(x) and Working Conditions(y).
2.Absence of Y, shows X is the only reason for the issue at hand. This is Unnecessary Coorelation.


B:
Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions.
Problem: Generalisation. Deductively, a logic is created that if something is true for "MANY COMPANIES" i.e., "many companies have no X when the said problem is there". So this must be true for Company P also.
Now "many" can never be equal to "Most/all". Hence, This cannot be used for "weakening".
In fact, I believe that this option is OUT OF SCOPE.

D:
The reasons given by Company P's employees for their dissatisfaction varied greatly from employee to employee.
This shows that there may be more than one reason for company P employees to be dissatisfied.
Hence, This is Directly Weakening the argument assumption.


Now please tell me what I assumed or did wrong.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:49 pm
No one answers. why?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
Thanked: 149 times
Followed by:32 members
GMAT Score:760

by avik.ch » Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:11 pm
B:
Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions.
Problem: Generalisation. Deductively, a logic is created that if something is true for "MANY COMPANIES" i.e., "many companies have no X when the said problem is there". So this must be true for Company P also.
Now "many" can never be equal to "Most/all". Hence, This cannot be used for "weakening".
In fact, I believe that this option is OUT OF SCOPE.
We do not confirm/destroy an argument in Strengthening and Weakening. For Strengthening/weakening, we are just producing a counter evidence or a supporting evidence.
For this question, anything that will weaken it from "most" to "least" will be considered as weakener. So we can deduce that "many companies" is applicable here - at least it weakens in some respect.
D:
The reasons given by Company P's employees for their dissatisfaction varied greatly from employee to employee.
This shows that there may be more than one reason for company P employees to be dissatisfied.
Hence, This is Directly Weakening the argument assumption.
claims/views never establish a causality.


Hope this helps !!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:58 pm
avik.ch wrote:
B:
Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions.
Problem: Generalisation. Deductively, a logic is created that if something is true for "MANY COMPANIES" i.e., "many companies have no X when the said problem is there". So this must be true for Company P also.
Now "many" can never be equal to "Most/all". Hence, This cannot be used for "weakening".
In fact, I believe that this option is OUT OF SCOPE.
We do not confirm/destroy an argument in Strengthening and Weakening. For Strengthening/weakening, we are just producing a counter evidence or a supporting evidence.
For this question, anything that will weaken it from "most" to "least" will be considered as weakener. So we can deduce that "many companies" is applicable here - at least it weakens in some respect.
1. if something is true for a company, it is not necessary that it is true for company P also.
2. it may be possible that company p is not in the list of "many companies"
avik.ch wrote:
D:
The reasons given by Company P's employees for their dissatisfaction varied greatly from employee to employee.
This shows that there may be more than one reason for company P employees to be dissatisfied.
Hence, This is Directly Weakening the argument assumption.
claims/views never establish a causality.

Hope this helps !!
two interpretations of D:
1. the extent(greatly) to which reasons varied..............it is a view.
2. the number(from employee to employee) to which reasons varied.......................it is a fact.

why interpretation 2 is wrong?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:06 pm
imskpwr wrote:A confidential survey revealed that 75 percent of the employees of Company P are dissatisfied with their jobs. However, an investigation into working conditions at the company showed nothing uncommonly bad. Therefore, Company P's consulting firm concluded that the employees' dissatisfaction must result from an unusually high incidence of psychological problems on their part.

Each of the following, if true, casts doubt on the consulting firm's conclusion EXCEPT:

B) Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions.

D) The reasons given by Company P's employees for their dissatisfaction varied greatly from employee to employee.[/spoiler]
Argument says there are only 2 reasons for dissatisfaction (1) poor working conditions, and (2) psychological problems

Except question, so wrong answer will show that there is (1) and (2) are the ONLY REASON for dissatisfaction

B - I agree with you that P may not be part of MANY. Possibility one: P is definitely part of Many - means (1) is made false (B will weaken).

Possibility two: P is NOT part of MANY; in that case point of B (no problem in working condition even thn dissatisfied) may still be true for P - if it is true thn it will weaken, but if it NOT TRUE then B will not weaken.

IMO, "many" should have been MOST to make it more appropriate weakener (I am assuming that MANY is MOST here; what is true for many is true for P; but this assumption is not appropriate always)

D - employees have different reason does not mean that "psychological problems" is not the reason for dissatisfaction. Also, it does not give any idea about working condition so we cannot say WORKING CONDITION is ok in P. In the absence of appropriate information, we cannot say with confidence whether (1) and (2) are not the ONLY reason - this choice STRENGTHENS ARGUMENT OR IS JUST A CRAP. In both cases, its the correct answer (except)

B can be a correct answer with some degree of assumption, but D is definitely correct (without any assumption). Therefore, IMO D
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Thanked: 136 times
Followed by:62 members

by KapTeacherEli » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:17 am
Hi guys,
I got asked to stop by to clarify a few things!

Patanjali, "most" and "many" are very important in many problems, but you're overanalyzing them here. Remember, on the GMAT "weaken" question type, you aren't trying to disprove the argument. You're just trying to cast doubt upon it, to make it less likely. Any answer that clearly an unequivocally makes the author's conclusion less likely to follow from his premises is a correct weakener (or incorrect on a weaken EXCEPT)

Here, based on an inability to identify why employees are dissatisfied, the consulting firm in the prompt assumes that those employees are crazy. Well, the argument is the only thing that sounds crazy to me! The firm is making a classic flawed assumption: that psychological issues are the only possible explanation for employee dissatisfaction.

Now, choice (B) is very vague. "Many companies" really doesn't give us much in terms of the numbers of those companies. But it does make one think clear--unless "many companies" have unusually high incidence of insane employees, it seems likely that there is an alternate explanation for widespread dissatisfaction. And as soon as an alternate explanation seems likely, the firm's explanation seems less likely. So vague though (B) may be, it still is a weakener, and not the correct answer.

Good luck, and keep up the good work!
Eli Meyer
Kaplan GMAT Teacher
Cambridge, MA
www.kaptest.com/gmat

ImageImageImage
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:45 am
KapTeacherEli wrote:Hi guys,
I got asked to stop by to clarify a few things!

Patanjali, "most" and "many" are very important in many problems, but you're overanalyzing them here. Remember, on the GMAT "weaken" question type, you aren't trying to disprove the argument. You're just trying to cast doubt upon it, to make it less likely. Any answer that clearly an unequivocally makes the author's conclusion less likely to follow from his premises is a correct weakener (or incorrect on a weaken EXCEPT)

Here, based on an inability to identify why employees are dissatisfied, the consulting firm in the prompt assumes that those employees are crazy. Well, the argument is the only thing that sounds crazy to me! The firm is making a classic flawed assumption: that psychological issues are the only possible explanation for employee dissatisfaction.

Now, choice (B) is very vague. "Many companies" really doesn't give us much in terms of the numbers of those companies. But it does make one think clear--unless "many companies" have unusually high incidence of insane employees, it seems likely that there is an alternate explanation for widespread dissatisfaction. And as soon as an alternate explanation seems likely, the firm's explanation seems less likely. So vague though (B) may be, it still is a weakener, and not the correct answer.

Good luck, and keep up the good work!
yup! alternate explanations are there: Psychological problem or something else perhaps.
Just because there maybe other reasons(something else) also, can we say it's a Weakener?
what if other reasons are psychological problems only.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:44 am
KapTeacherEli wrote:Hi guys,
I got asked to stop by to clarify a few things!

Patanjali, "most" and "many" are very important in many problems, but you're overanalyzing them here. Remember, on the GMAT "weaken" question type, you aren't trying to disprove the argument. You're just trying to cast doubt upon it, to make it less likely. Any answer that clearly an unequivocally makes the author's conclusion less likely to follow from his premises is a correct weakener (or incorrect on a weaken EXCEPT)

Good luck, and keep up the good work!
Thanks for a great explanation.

I always take MANY/MOST literally - that sound not like a good strategy. Could you pls share some more insights in which cases distinction between MANY/MOST/SOME becomes key.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Thanked: 136 times
Followed by:62 members

by KapTeacherEli » Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:50 pm
"many" doesn't necessarily mean "lots" or "most" as we use it in conversation. "Many" on critical reasoning means "3 or more." So ask yourself, would just a few counterexamples weaken an argument?

So, "many restaurants go bankrupt even with great business plans" would not be the answer for weakening the argument "My restaurant is likely to succeed because of its great business plan." "Many" counterexamples doesn't actually inform us much about the likelihood of success. But it WOULD weaken the argument "My restaurant is certain to succeed because of its great business plan," because even one counterexample means we're no longer certain any more.
Eli Meyer
Kaplan GMAT Teacher
Cambridge, MA
www.kaptest.com/gmat

ImageImageImage
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:45 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by imskpwr » Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:20 am
KapTeacherEli wrote:"many" doesn't necessarily mean "lots" or "most" as we use it in conversation. "Many" on critical reasoning means "3 or more." So ask yourself, would just a few counterexamples weaken an argument?

So, "many restaurants go bankrupt even with great business plans" would not be the answer for weakening the argument "My restaurant is likely to succeed because of its great business plan." "Many" counterexamples doesn't actually inform us much about the likelihood of success. But it WOULD weaken the argument "My restaurant is certain to succeed because of its great business plan," because even one counterexample means we're no longer certain any more.
Yes sir, here in your example, I know for sure that it CASTS DOUBT on the conclusion. But, I am still unable to find out any in the main q.
I don't know what is wrong with my reasoning.
Am i comprehending the argument correctly?
Is there any subtle meaning associated with these options that I am not getting?
Definitely, more explanation is required.
Hope you will help!
Top
User avatar
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

by GMATGuruNY » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:06 am
Therefore, Company P's consulting firm concluded that the employees' dissatisfaction must result from an unusually high incidence of psychological problems on their part.

Each of the following, if true, casts doubt on the consulting firm's conclusion EXCEPT:

B: Workers in many companies are dissatisfied although there are no apparent problems with their working conditions.
The consulting firm links EMPLOYEE DISSATISFACTION + NO APPARENT PROBLEMS IN WORKING CONDITIONS to an UNUSUALLY HIGH INCIDENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.
If the firm's conclusion is valid, then -- according to B -- MANY COMPANIES must have an UNUSUALLY HIGH INCIDENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.
It is not possible for MANY companies to be UNUSUAL; this is a contradiction in terms.
Thus, B weakens the firm's conclusion.
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
Top
Post new topic Post Reply