Q23 - A television manufacturing plant

[gyfirefire]

Hi MLSAT Staff,

Could anyone help me decipher why (E) is not correct?
It seems that when it comes down to 2 options, i am more inclined to pick the wrong one.

Thanks a lot!

[noah]

There are some tricky answers on this one. BTW, take a look at how I edited your post's title - that's the way to title threads so that others can find them easily (take a look at the sticky at the top of each forum).

Anywho, the conclusion of this argument is that we can assume that the plant can fire 10 people and not see a dip in production. Why? Because there are, on average, 10 people absent and the plant manages to keep up production regardless.

Plant output average when 10 workers absent --> firing 10 workers won't hurt output

What's the gap? Well, for one, if there are 100 people working at the plant, and 10 are usually absent, that means 10% are absent each day. The plant seems to work fine with 90 people. But, if you fire 10 people, then the total drops to 90 but there's no reason to think people will start always coming to work. In fact, we can more easily assume that the absentee rate will continue at 10%, meaning 9 people of the 90. Can the plant do OK with only 81 workers? (B) points out this flaw.

Looking at the other answers:

(A) is reversed - if the remaining workers produced more than previously, that would support the idea that the plant can maintain production with a smaller workforce.

(C) is suspiciously strong -- only when? Digging deeper, the argument does not assume that the production rate requires the average number of absences to not go higher. There's no discussion of the rate increasing. If we changed (C) to say "takes for granted that the normal rate of production can be attained with a smaller staff, even if the rate of absences remains the same" then we'd like it - it would be similar to (B)!

(D) is tempting. What if you fire the guy who actually knows how to work the machines? True, that could be a problem, but then you have to assume that the firing decisions would be randomized, or at least not take into account such specialization.

(E) is also tempting. However, the argument does not assume that the rate is not affected by the number of employees. It concludes that removing 10 people would not negatively impact the production rate, but there's no assumption that in general, the number of employees doesn't affect the rate. In fact, as someone below pointed out, perhaps it's the loss of 10 people that makes the factory productive!

Does that clear it up?

[richtailkim]

Noah,

First of all, I want to just say how much I've benefited from this forum. You guys (and girls) provide a truly valuable source of information for people like me who lack the money to take courses and are opting to self-study.

I agree with your explanation about (B) but I had a different explanation as to why (E) is wrong.

The reason why (E) is wrong is that the argument does not take for granted that the rate of production is not affected by the number of workers employed at the plant.

In fact, it could be true that the rate of production IS affected by the number of workers employed at the plant, by, say, the workers producing more when there are less workers. This might seem implausible, although I think it is clearly not out of the realm of possibility. For example, having too many chefs in a kitchen may decrease the rate of the dishes being served because of factors like overcrowding, clash of tempers, etc.

So I don't think (E) is wrong because it is just the part of the conclusion of the argument. It is wrong because it doesn't actually state an assumption of the argument.

[noah]

That's a good point!

I guess I was reading the conclusion too broadly. It simply notes that losing a certain number of people wouldn't negatively affect production rates, but not that production rates in general are unaffected by the number of workers.

I'll go and edit my explanation.

For anyone who wants to see what I had written, it was this:

(E) is also tempting. However, the argument does not assume that the rate is not affected, it actually concludes that it would not be affected. If you assume something, you don't mention it.

Thanks for writing your thoughts, and thanks for the shout-out about the forums. We figure that letting people in and being helpful is a fun and heartfelt way to spread the word about what we do.

[richtailkim]

No problem! As I said, I've learned much from this great forum

I'm more than happy to contribute!

- Richard

[rzaman]

I'm having some difficulty understanding answer choice B. Maybe it's a semantic issue that tripping me up but why would the flaw be "fail to show...." as stated in answer choice B. Wouldn't showing that possibility weaken the argument so really the author is overlooking that possibility -- not failing to show. Am I missing something here?

[timmydoeslsat]

I'm having some difficulty understanding answer choice B. Maybe it's a semantic issue that tripping me up but why would the flaw be "fail to show...." as stated in answer choice B. Wouldn't showing that possibility weaken the argument so really the author is overlooking that possibility -- not failing to show. Am I missing something here?

No you are not missing anything. You are on the right track and appear to not realize it!

This argument is flawed. We want to state why this argument is flawed.

As Noah pointed out above, the argument goes like this:

Company has 1,000 employees and an average of 10 are absent each day.
+
On days when 10 people are absent, production is still the normal rate.

---> Reasonable to assume plant could fire 10 workers without loss of production.


The problem in reaching this conclusion is that it does not take into account the average of 10 workers that are absent each day.

This argument starts out with 1,000 employees with 10 people absent each day.

That means we have 990 employees producing at rate X.

However, what if we fired 10 people?

We now have 990 employees with 10 people absent each day.

That means we have 980 employees. The argument believes that this group would still produce at rate X.

This may be true, but it is not certain.

The argument is assuming that the 10 people that are fired are the people that are absent. The arguer is like, "Well that takes care of that problem *Wipes his hands with pride*"

But the arguer failed to show us any reason that the absentee rate would in fact drop. We would have to assume that those 10 people were the 10 people that were constantly absent.

[rpcuhk]

According to Noah's explanation, if we change answer choice (E) into the following:

Takes for granted that the rate of production is not NEGATIVELY affected by the number of workers employed at the plant

it will be a correct answer?

[goriano]

According to Noah's explanation, if we change answer choice (E) into the following:

Takes for granted that the rate of production is not NEGATIVELY affected by the number of workers employed at the plant

it will be a correct answer?

I think that would still be an incorrect answer choice because it is still too general. That is, the author is assuming that 10 workers wouldn't negatively affect the rate of production. But that is not to say the author wouldn't think firing 11, 12, or 13 etc. workers wouldn't negatively affect the rate of production.

(D) is tempting. What if you fire the guy who actually knows how to work the machines? True, that could be a problem, but then you have to assume that the firing decisions would be randomized, or at least not take into account such specialization.

I'm still having a hard time eliminating (D). Mainly because the author's conclusion seems a bit strong- that is reasonable to assume IF firing 10 workers --> no production loss. So even if we believed the firing was randomized, there is still a chance that even just one of the "crucial workers" might be fired thereby decreasing productivity. Usually I'm able to to pick between two seemingly "good" answer choices, but I'm having a hard time choosing (B) over (D).

[noah]

I think that would still be an incorrect answer choice because it is still too general. That is, the author is assuming that 10 workers wouldn't negatively affect the rate of production. But that is not to say the author wouldn't think firing 11, 12, or 13 etc. workers wouldn't negatively affect the rate of production.

I agree that it still is off. We need to assume that the loss of 10 workers isn't going to negatively affect the output, not the general number of workers.

I'm still having a hard time eliminating (D). Mainly because the author's conclusion seems a bit strong- that is reasonable to assume IF firing 10 workers --> no production loss. So even if we believed the firing was randomized, there is still a chance that even just one of the "crucial workers" might be fired thereby decreasing productivity. Usually I'm able to to pick between two seemingly "good" answer choices, but I'm having a hard time choosing (B) over (D).

Good question. First of all, there is also the premise that losing 10 workers because of absence doesn't affect the output. In fact, I'd say the core is this:

Plant output average when 10 workers absent --> firing 10 workers won't hurt output

As for (D), if you read back over what you've written, you've added in that the firing might be randomized. It's just as likely that the 10 workers fired are taken from the non-specialized group. The conclusion is simply that "the plant could fire 10 workers," not that it could fire any 10 workers.

Another way to examine (D) is to make it true -- if it's a dangerous possibility that was overlooked, making it true should destroy the argument. So we accept that certain workers are crucial to the production. Does this mean that we can no longer conclude definitively that firing 10 workers will probably not affect output? No. As I mentioned above, as long as those special workers are not fired, it's still reasonable to draw that conclusion.

Does that make sense?

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

I am still having hard time understanding why E is incorrect.

the main crux of the argument is that :

P1- Avg # of workers absent = 10/1000
P2- When EXACTLY 10 workers are absent => 990 are present => rate of production is normal

C - Hence, the plan COULD fire 10 employees **WITHOUT LOSS OF ANY PRODUCTIVITY**


There is a big gap, especially if you notice the words between ** **. Can't we say that the argument assumes that the productivity WOULDN'T (CONDITIONALS ARE IMPORTANT) change when these workers are fired. In other words, even if some other workers are absent (i.e. "takes for granted that the number of workers change"), the productivity wouldn't change at all (i.e. "no impact on overall rate of production").

On the other hand, if we closely analyze B, the effect of the drop in absentee rate on the rate of production is also a flaw.

I am really confused. Please help me.

[noah]

Does the argument assume that the rate of production is in no way affected by the number of people working at the plant?

It seems to me that the argument assumes that the production rate IS affected, and is doing its best to show that in this case there won't be an effect, since there already are 10 people absent/day.

Make sense?

[vincent.m]

Hey guys,

I am still having trouble seeing why E is wrong. Please help!

Thank you!

[sumukh09]

Hey guys,

I am still having trouble seeing why E is wrong. Please help!

Thank you!

E is wrong because it doesn't address the flaw in the argument. The flaw is that the argument assumes that the same 10 people fired will be the same 10 people that are absent on any given day. Perhaps it is the case that the 10 that get fired are people that normally show up to work every day - this may increase the absentee rate.

Also, for E) to be correct it would have to be true that the argument takes for granted that the rate of production is not affected by the number of people employed at the plant. But it simply doesn't do this.

Another way of looking at this argument is that it takes 990 - 1000 people working to produce televisions at its normal rate. The argument says that, if 10 are fired from the 1000, then the factory would still produce at its normal rate because with 990 people working, the rate of production is unaffected. Therefore, it must assume that the people that get fired are the same 10 that would be absent. It fails to show that the absentee rate would drop, because we NEED it drop if the rate of production is to be the same; if it doesn't drop, then less than 990 would be working on any given day.

Now, I can see why E would be tempting. However, the argument in fact implies that the rate of production IS affected by the number of people employed by the plant, not the other way around. As mentioned earlier, 990 - 1000 people have to be working to produce televisions at the normal rate of production, which means that the rate of production IS affected by the number of people working at the plant. Also, think about it this way, if 10 people are fired, then there's only 990 employees. Thus, for their argument to work, the absentee rate would have to be 0 - this is the assumption/flaw! They take for granted that the absentee rate would drop!

Long story short, the argument doesn't assume that the rate of production is unaffected by the number of people working - it does the opposite. It must be true that there must be at least 990 people working to produce televisions at the normal rate; so in making their argument, they take for granted that the same people that get fired are the same ones that would be absent on any given day.

Edit: I just realized I said the same thing like 343453 different ways. Sorry! Hopefully it helps though

[vincent.m]

Thank you Sumukh09, it helped alot!

[pewals13]

Answer Choices:

(A) The argument doesn't ignore this possibility, in fact, it suggests it. Eliminate.

(B) Correct. The author reaches her conclusion that the plant could fire 10 employees and maintain output on the basis that the plant consistently operates with 10 workers absent. She overlooks the fact that the absentee rate will continue and that just becuase the plant can operate with 990 employees does not mean, on the basis of the evidence provided, that it could maintain output with 980. This points out how the premises do not guarantee the conclusion.

(C) The argument does not assume or assert that the normal rate of production requires an absentee rate lower than the average.

(D) The argument does not assume that certain workers are not crucial for the production of televisions. It simply asserts that there are ten workers who could be fired from the plant while stll maintaining its pre-layoff output.

(E) The argument does not take for granted that the rate of production is unaffected by the number of workers employed. Taking this answer choice to its logical extreme: Is the argument assuming that if there was one guy in the factory it would be able to maintain the same output it had when it was employing 1,000 people? No. (Okay, maybe, if that guy is Chuck Norris)

[HughM388]

This question and its correct answer do a very slippery thing that gives rise to the difficulty people are experiencing with it, and I don't think any of the explanations here have addressed it.

One of other answer choices is perhaps vaguely tempting, and while the presence of competing answers does give rise to difficulty on the LSAT that's not what's happening here. In fact the correct answer is markedly superior to the other choices, and is perhaps even unusually strong and decisive for a weakener in the later part of the section. But the test writers build this question in a very clever way that allows them to hide the correct answer in plain sight. I had even anticipated the correct answer fairly accurately, but I fell prey to the trap the test had set and I looked right through correct answer.

The question is built to induce a series of very particular calculations. The stimulus intends you to envision the potential effects of a population of workers dropping from 1,000 to 990, first as a function of absences and then in the context of firings. Then, almost simultaneously, the stimulus encourages you to consider a potential concomitant drop (or lack thereof) in productivity. Note that I've used the verb "drop" now twice, and most deliberately.

As a result of making that series of subtractive calculations, you're encouraged to think about those numbers dropping in a very particular way, such that those numbers become smaller as a result of dropping. And consequently when you come to read the correct answer choice (B) you interpret "drop" to mean exactly the opposite of what it means in terms of the rate of absence—which, counterintuitively, makes the number of workers increase or at least not decrease further.

Though the calculations in the stimulus are by no means complex the process is nonetheless highly suggestive, and the use of "drop" in the correct answer is even more deceptive than it would be otherwise. When you see how the rate of absence operates in response to the stimulus, it becomes clear that (B) is the definitively correct answer, and is

[weid247]

Actually you guys explanation make this question more difficult than it is actually.

Premise: absent 10 do not drop the productivity.
Conclusion: fire 10 do not drop the productivity.

The author assume absent 10 equal to fire 10. It must assume when fire 10, perhaps there is no one absent. It at least assume the absent drop, perhaps to zero, perhaps not, but must drop.

So the real error is the author fail to show, or take for grant that the absent rate will drop.