Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 4 · Question 23

Incorrect. This possibility helps the argument—if the remaining workers work harder, then productivity should increase. Since the possibility here helps the argument, the argument isn't flawed for ignoring it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
When 10 of 1,000 TV manufacturing workers are out sick, productivity isn't affected, so the plant can fire 10 people without dropping productivity.

Answer Anticipation:
The premises of the argument here show that 10 people being absent from a plant doesn't result in a drop in productivity. It then concludes that 10 people could be fired without hurting productivity.

However, that doesn't mean that there would be 10 fewer people working—because firing people doesn't stop others from ending up being absent for a variety of reasons! As such, there would be a decrease of more than 10 workers if 10 were fired and others were still out absent—a possibility that the argument ignores.

Let's find an answer raising it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that there would still be absences even after the firings, resulting in a decrease of more than the 10 workers fired, thus potentially threatening productivity. Since failing to show this to be the case is a problem for the argument, this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
This argument can feel a bit hard to see a pattern to, but it actually falls into a common one! When a change is brought up and an outcome predicted, there's always the possibility for other changes to occur, as well. When one thing is changing, always consider other relevant factors!

Incorrect. The argument assumes that if 10 people are fired, then the normal rate of production can continue—which is a bit of a reversal of this answer.

Incorrect. It doesn't overlook that possibility—just don't fire those people! This answer would be more relevant if the conclusion stated that 10 people could be fired randomly.

Incorrect. The argument uses prior data to show that a specific number of people working at the plant on a given day doesn't lower productivity, but it doesn't assume that there's no relationship between the number of workers and productivity. Presumably, the author would agree that firing everyone would grind production to a halt!