Support On average, corporations that encourage frequent social events in the workplace show higher profits than those that rarely do. ████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ███████████ █████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██████
The author concludes the EZ Corporation could increase profits by having more staff parties during business hours. Why would this work? Because corporations that encourage frequent social events in the workplace have high profits than corporations that don’t.
The author assumes, based on a correlation between workplace social events and higher profits, that the former causes the latter. The author therefore assumes the relationship isn’t reversed (i.e. higher profits causing workplace social events), and that there isn't a third factor related to both profits and workplace social events.
The author also assumes that holding social events during work hours wouldn't cause enough of a productivity loss to negate any increase in profitability that social events may cause.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████
The great majority ██ ████████████ ████ █████████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██ ██ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████████████ ████████
This rebuts the author's assumption that the observed correlation is due to social events causing higher profits. If the the causal relationship is the other way around, that weakens the argument.
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Corporations that have ████████ █████ ███████ █████ ████████ █████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██████
Firstly, "sometimes" is too weak for us to conclude whether this is often the case, or just rarely. Secondly, the argument is just about boosting profits, which could still be true without maximizing them.
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
The EZ Corporation ███████ █████ █████████████ ████████ ███ ██ ██████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████
It's totally possible that a corporation with above-average profits could still further increase its profits. This is irrelevant to the argument.
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
Frequent social events ██ █ █████████ █████████ █████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ████████ ██████ ████ ████ █████ █████████ █████
This doesn't tell us whether the productivity loss from lost time would outweigh any possible benefit from parties. Since we don't know, this doesn't do anything.
At one time ███ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ███ █████
This doesn't offer any concrete information about the relationship between parties and profitability at EZ Corporation, so it isn't relevant.
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.