Critical Reasoning

GMATGuruNY wrote:

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.

fisrt time saw such a reasoning. Thanks!

A. 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.
--- here a 3rd cause is given, So definitely weakens the argument.

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

We Cant say that Many companies = P. So not a weakener.

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

-- Here available information is challenged and argument is weakened.

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

.. If we assume that there are many employees at the company, so there are many reasons for dissatisfaction. This also is a weakener


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

IMO Answer should be B.

Furqan wrote:A. 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.
--- here a 3rd cause is given, So definitely weakens the argument.

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

We Cant say that Many companies = P. So not a weakener.

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

-- Here available information is challenged and argument is weakened.

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

.. If we assume that there are many employees at the company, so there are many reasons for dissatisfaction. This also is a weakener


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

IMO Answer should be B.

Please read the whole discussion above....it helps...
Read Mitch's explanation, only after members discussions(we all were going round and round...)
Another Amazing Q from kaplan......

imskpwr wrote: Another Amazing Q from kaplan......

Thanks! We appreciate it!

imskpwr wrote: Another Amazing Q from kaplan......

Yes, after all its KAPLAN !!

KapTeacherEli wrote:

imskpwr wrote: Another Amazing Q from kaplan......

Thanks! We appreciate it!

Ironically, explanations could be better....