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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

payroll and economy

Expert replies
by mparakala » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:34 pm
Economist: Drastically cutting payroll costs by reducing employees will bolster corporate profits and the national economy. In such a restructuring, the remaining employees must be organized to work more efficiently, which includes increasing their amount of overtime work, rather than hiring new underutilized personnel. The resulting increase in national productivity will then allow those who were made jobless to find work in new positions that will have sprung up with the healthier economy.

Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the economist's conclusion above?

A) If employees are made to work longer hours, the additional hours worked will not be as productive as the regular hours these same employees have already worked.

B) Most corporations are already at the minimum numbers of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations.

C) Some economists predict that the national economy will substantially improve in the next two years even without drastic reductions in payroll costs.

D) If corporations reduce the number of employees, the average number of employees per company will decrease.

E) Many of the new positions in a restructured economy would be lower paying than those lost during the restructuring.


I shall post the OA later.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by hemant_rajput » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:27 am
IMO A
I'm no expert, just trying to work on my skills. If I've made any mistakes please bear with me.
Join the discussion

by charu_mahajan » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:54 am
IMO B

C, D and E - Out of scope

A does weaken the argument but not as much as B does. A states that additional hours will not be as productive as regular hours. What I infer is that they might not be as productive but they will still be somewhat productive. Whereas B states that - Most corporations are already at the minimum numbers of employees needed to effectively maintain their operations. So MOST of the corporations are already on the edge. Removing a few employees might seriously affect operations. And hence, this weakens the Economist's claim the most.
Join the discussion

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:16 pm
Great explanation, Charu - and you're right on.

A doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion. If employees used to work 40 extremely productive hours per week and now they work 40 extremely productive hours per week plus 10 more somewhat-productive hours per week, businesses still get more value out of each employee and the conclusion can still hold.

This is where it's strategically important to read all answer choices. If you fall in love with A before you read B, you'll miss the fact that B is a lights-out weaken answer. B shows that there's no way we can cut employees - cutting even one employee at these companies would jeopardize the entire operation and be counterproductive to the goal.

You'll find that as questions get harder you'll often need to pit two "possible" choices against each other to finally find that flaw in the "trap answer", so make sure that you take the extra few seconds to at least read each option before you commit to one. This question is a good example of that.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
Join the discussion

by mparakala » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:47 pm
Thats right OA is B

A talks about what is mentioned in the stimulus already. The stimulus talks about making long hours of work efficient. So, A is incorrect as it tries to prove that the premise is incorrect.
Join the discussion

by tanviet » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:40 am
though I do not choose A this time, the wrong answer of type A is popular on og books, I failing many times.

I call A: AFFECTING BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH to be correct.

A is still a strengthener even if the new job have lower salaries.
Join the discussion

by insanejuxtapose » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:33 am
Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Great explanation, Charu - and you're right on.

A doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion. If employees used to work 40 extremely productive hours per week and now they work 40 extremely productive hours per week plus 10 more somewhat-productive hours per week, businesses still get more value out of each employee and the conclusion can still hold.

This is where it's strategically important to read all answer choices. If you fall in love with A before you read B, you'll miss the fact that B is a lights-out weaken answer. B shows that there's no way we can cut employees - cutting even one employee at these companies would jeopardize the entire operation and be counterproductive to the goal.

You'll find that as questions get harder you'll often need to pit two "possible" choices against each other to finally find that flaw in the "trap answer", so make sure that you take the extra few seconds to at least read each option before you commit to one. This question is a good example of that.

Even with B, isn't it an assumption that cutting employees below the minimum number is jeopardizing the operations? For e.g

If the company has 1000 employees currently (minimum) to effectively run operations and
decides to fire 100 employees and expect the remaining 900 employees to work overtime? they may still be more productive than with 1000 employees. Something similar to A. How do we decide in such a case?
Join the discussion