Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 2 · Question 24

This strengthens the argument, but it isn't necessary.

This answer choice strengthens the argument because it establishes that expensive bonuses can incentivize employees to work hard even though they're not being monitored.

However, this isn't necessary to the argument because we don't need to know that some corporations already give out these bonuses as an incentive to work hard. Even if no corporations give out these bonuses, these bonuses could still incentivize employees to work hard and thus save highly profitable corporations money.

Finally, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Managers' time is more valuable in highly profitable corporations. So, monitoring employees is very costly for highly profitable corporations. Reducing monitoring can save highly profitable corporations money. But, employees need incentives to work hard. But, it's not true that only a few corporations give their employees bonuses that provide strong enough incentives for the employees to keep working hard even when they are not being monitored. So, giving employees expensive bonuses won't save highly profitable corporations money."

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would knowing that no corporations give out big bonuses prove that giving out bonuses won't save the corporations money? This argument doesn't provide any evidence that expensive bonuses won't incentivize employees to work hard. So, this answer choice doesn't pass the backup test.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (A).

This answer choice doesn't strengthen the argument. It puts the conclusion in the "if" part of an "if-then" statement. The correct answer to a Strengthen with a Necessary Premise question can't do that. Such statements presuppose that the conclusion is true. However, such a presupposition won't help the argument since we don't know whether the conclusion is true!

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Managers' time is more valuable in highly profitable corporations. So, monitoring employees is very costly for highly profitable corporations. Reducing monitoring can save highly profitable corporations money. But, employees need incentives to work hard. But, it's not true that if a highly profitable corporation could save money by giving its employees expensive bonuses, it is because giving such bonuses would reduce the amount of time its managers must spend monitoring those employees. So, giving employees expensive bonuses won't save highly profitable corporations money."

This doesn't make a lot of sense. The "But, it's not true that part" establishes that a highly profitable corporation can save money through expensive bonuses for reasons other than reducing its need to monitor employees. Even if that's true, the corporation is still saving money through the bonuses. So, giving employees expensive bonuses would save highly profitable corporations money! So, this answer choice doesn't pass the backup test.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (B).

This answer choice doesn't strengthen the argument. In fact, it weakens it! If managers at highly profitable corporations aren't monitoring their employees, then these corporations wouldn't save money through expensive bonuses. These bonuses only save the company money, according to this argument, because they replace the need for managers to use their valuable time monitoring their employees. But if these bonuses aren't replacing that monitoring, they'll only cost the corporation money.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Managers' time is more valuable in highly profitable corporations. So, monitoring employees is very costly for highly profitable corporations. Reducing monitoring can save highly profitable corporations money. But, employees need incentives to work hard. But, it's not true that the more valuable the managers' time is at a corporation, the less likely it is that the corporation will actually have those managers spend time monitoring employees. So, giving employees expensive bonuses won't save highly profitable corporations money."

This doesn't make a lot of sense. The "But, it's not true that part" establishes that managers of highly profitable corporations monitor their employees' activity. The premises establish that this is very costly. So, it's unclear why replacing this monitoring with bonuses wouldn't save the corporations money, as this conclusion asserts. Giving employees expensive bonuses instead of wasting the manager's valuable time could save highly profitable corporations money! So, this answer choice doesn't pass the backup test.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (C).

As we anticipated, this answer choice strengthens the argument by establishing that expensive bonuses is a strong incentive for employees of highly profitable corporations to work hard. If employees of highly profitable corporations are given bonuses instead of being monitored, and these bonuses incentivize the employees to work hard, then it makes sense that these bonuses can save the corporation money. After all, these bonuses would replace managers' need to waste their valuable time by monitoring their employees while ensuring the employees continue to work hard.

We also need to know this to draw the conclusion. If these bonuses didn't incentivize employees to work hard, then the bonuses might not save the company money. Managers would need to monitor the employees again (wasting their valuable time and costing the corporation money), or the corporation would not function properly (potentially losing money in the process). Since this answer choice strengthens and is needed to draw the conclusion, it is the correct answer.

Alternatively, we can also evaluate this answer choice using the backup plan. Here's the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan (note that we simplified the answer choice to make this easier to read):

"Managers' time is more valuable in highly profitable corporations. So, monitoring employees is very costly for highly profitable corporations. Reducing monitoring can save highly profitable corporations money. But, employees need incentives to work hard. But, it's not true that expensive bonuses constitute strong incentives for employees of highly profitable corporations to keep working hard. So, giving employees expensive bonuses won't save highly profitable corporations money."

This makes sense. If expensive bonuses don't ensure that employees work hard, these bonuses won't necessarily save the company money. The bonuses will be costly. And, because employees may not work as hard, the managers might need to monitor the employees again (which would waste their valuable time and cost the corporation money), or the corporation would not function properly (which could be very costly). Since this argument makes sense, (D) also passes the backup test.

Therefore, no matter which approach we used, we can be confident that (D) is the correct answer.

If we diagram it out or translate it into a simple "if-then" statement, we'll see that it asserts that if corporations save money by reducing their managers' monitoring, they have to give their employees expensive bonuses.

In its translated form, we can see that this answer choice strengthens the argument but isn't necessary.

This answer choice strengthens the argument by establishing that expensive bonuses can incentivize employees to work hard even though they're not being monitored.

However, this isn't necessary to the argument because we don't need to know that expensive bonuses are the only way to incentivize employees to work hard or for a corporation to save money. The argument only asserts that such bonuses can help a corporation save money. It doesn't assert that there are no other ways to save money or keep employees working hard. For this reason, (D) is not a necessary premise for this argument.

Alternatively, this is the argument we'd make if we used the backup plan:

"Managers' time is more valuable in highly profitable corporations. So, monitoring employees is very costly for highly profitable corporations. Reducing monitoring can save highly profitable corporations money. But, employees need incentives to work hard. But, it's not true that a highly profitable corporation can save money by reducing its managers' monitoring of employees only if its employees are given expensive bonuses. So, giving employees expensive bonuses won't save highly profitable corporations money."

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if there are other ways to save money, couldn't expensive bonuses still save corporations money? Moreover, this argument doesn't provide any evidence that expensive bonuses won't incentivize employees to work hard. So, this answer choice doesn't pass the backup test.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently cross off (E).