PT120.S4.Q23 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11

PASSAGE 3

Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18

PASSAGE 4

Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the manufacturing plant could fire 10 of its 1000 workers without any loss in production. Why? Because an average of 10 workers are usually absent anyway. And, when 10 workers are absent, production continues at the usual rate.

The author notes that 10 workers are usually absent on any given day. However, he fails to establish that it’s the same 10 people every day. Quite possibly, which workers are absent varies from day to day.

If so, firing 10 workers would decrease the manufacturing plant’s workforce. In addition to lacking the absentee workers, the plant would now lack the fired workers. And thus production might decrease.

If the remaining workers produced more televisions, production would not go down—which would strengthen the author’s conclusion. So this can’t be the flaw.

The author’s conclusion requires the absentee rate to drop after the firings—but he doesn’t show that it would. Suppose the absentee rate stayed the same among the remaining workers. The workforce would then be missing both the absentee workers and the fired workers.

The author doesn’t presume that the normal rate of production can only be attained if the average number of workers or fewer are absent. He merely says that it is in fact attained when that number is absent.

We have no specific reason to believe that the author overlooks this—unlike the flaw in (B).

This goes far beyond what the author is arguing: it would mean that even reducing the number of workers by 80% would not affect the rate of production! The author is only contending that the loss of 10 workers wouldn’t affect production.

PrepTest 120 - Section 4 - Question 23

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action