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

Redeem

Princeton review

Expert replies
by CSASHISHPANDAY » Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:43 pm
This company has reduced its payroll several times during the last two years. Before each round of reductions, the human resources department has complained that the company would have to lay off productive employees. But only unproductive employees have been lost. Therefore, further reductions to the payroll will not result in the loss of any productive employees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the CEO''s conclusion?


a)The human resources department seldom exaggerates the potential consequences of reducing the payroll.

b) The salary demands of unproductive employees have not significantly increased in the last year.

c) Fewer than half of the company''s unproductive workers were laid off as a result of the last round of reductions.

d) Few members of the company''s board of directors support keeping unproductive employees on the payroll.

e) The company has always paid productive employees and unproductive employees similarly.


OA after discussion only
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by ice_rush » Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:49 pm
I'd go with (C). What's the OA?
Join the discussion

by CSASHISHPANDAY » Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:54 pm
yes it is C show ur explanation
Join the discussion

by ice_rush » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:02 am
Since fewer than half of the unproductive workers were laid off in the last round, we have plenty of workers to be laid off in the next round and thus the company won't need to get rid off its productive workers.

hope this helps!
Join the discussion

by techyrajeev » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:51 am
To support the CEO's conclusion, company should still have some unproductive employees otherwise how will company layoff unproductive employees?

That's why Option C is correct. because company still have more than one half unproductive employees.
Join the discussion