Critical Reasoning

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

Target2009 wrote:Mundasingh : Source already mentioned in original post

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

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.