RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:Imagine you and I are the only employees of this company. You're my boss. Before you begin enforcing this policy, when I get sick, I stay home from work. Dave's illness = 1/2 workers are present.

After you begin enforcing this policy, I go to the doctor to justify my absence when I'm sick.
Dave's illness = 1/2 workers are present.

So the policy doesn't increase the number of my absences if I increase the frequency of my visits to the doctor. It just alters the hoops I need to jump through to justify my absence.

Hi Dave,
Got you here Sir!

I think, Option A could be a close contender to be the OA if the CONCLUSION were ONLY "POLICY DIDN'T PRODUCE ITS INTENDED EFFECT" or "POLICY SIMPLY FAILED TO REDUCE PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES DUE TO EMPLOYEE FALLING ILL" , rather than what is given as the CONCLUSION that the policy produced the REVERSE of its intended effect.

Thoughts ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:I think, Option A could be a close contender to be the OA if the CONCLUSION were ONLY "POLICY DIDN'T PRODUCE ITS INTENDED EFFECT" or "POLICY SIMPLY FAILED TO REDUCE PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES DUE TO EMPLOYEE FALLING ILL" , rather than what is given as the CONCLUSION that the policy produced the REVERSE of its intended effect.

Thoughts ?

Even if the question were asking to explain why the policy didn't work, 'A' would have to be tweaked to be a good answer. Imagine that, after the plan was implemented, half the employees with mild illnesses went to the doctor to justify their absences from work, while the other half actually came in and were productive. The plan would still work in that case. So you'd need some indicator that the vast majority of those with minor illnesses were simply using the doctor as a cover for their days off.