PT127.S3.Q8 > 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 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The economist concludes that companies are likely to lay off employees when they need to reduce personnel costs during recessions. This is because layoffs affect morale less than wage reductions.

The economist believes that companies are more likely to take actions that have a less harmful effect on morale. This assumes that companies aren't primarily paying attention to financial or other non-morale factors when making these decisions.

This strengthens the argument. If companies are primarily guided by morale considerations when deciding between layoffs and wage cuts, and--as we know from the premises--layoffs damage morale less, then it makes sense that companies will likely go with layoffs rather than wage cuts.

We aren't talking about wage increases or the difficulty of hiring employees. We're talking about how companies make the decision either to cut wages and not fire employees, or fire employees and not cut wages. \"Not cutting\" and \"not firing\" aren't the same things as \"increasing\" or \"hiring\", so this answer choice doesn't tell us anything relevant to the argument.

Irrelevant. We're not interested in whether companies will make a profit or not. We just want to know how they make their decisions to reduce costs by either laying off employees or reducing wages.

Irrelevant. The premises have already established that reducing wages is worse for morale than laying people off. Knowing the details of what happens when wages are reduced doesn't help us decide whether companies are more likely to pursue the less morale-harming course of action.

This weakens the economist’s argument. It tells us that even if layoffs harm morale less than wage cuts, layoffs come with a potential long-term downside that might steer companies in favor of making wage cuts rather than laying people off during a recession.

PrepTest 127 - Section 3 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action