PrepTest 111

Incorrect. This answer might explain why it wasn't the best decision to close the divisions as far as future earnings was concerned, but it doesn't address why there were fewer people fired than expected.

Incorrect. If anything, this would suggest that the reduction in the workforce should have been bigger than the expected amount since there was attrition outside of the eliminated divisions. This answer makes the paradox worse.

Incorrect. People leaving doesn't help to explain why fewer people left than expected!50385,Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Reduce workforce by 25%
Approach - Implement a hiring freeze and eliminate divisions totaling 25% of the workforce
Outcome - 15% reduction in the workforce

Answer Anticipation:
A large firm set out a goal of reducing its workforce by 25%. Their approach had two parts—hire no one new, and close down some divisions that employed 25% of their workforce. And they did both of these things.

However, the workforce at the firm was only reduced by 15%. Since no new people were hired, it must be the case that not everyone who worked in those divisions was fired. Let's look for an answer stating how that happened—likely, some of those people ended up being moved to other divisions that weren't closed down.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that some of the employees in the closed divisions weren't let go, and so fewer than 25% of the workforce would be eliminated. Since this answer explains the situation, it's the correct information.

Key Takeaway:
When a Paradox question is based on expectations not being met, determine whether the outcome was higher or lower than expected. That'll help you analyze answer choices and know which ones resolve the paradox, and which ones make it worse.

Incorrect. First, this answer doesn't directly tie into why more staff members were retained than expected. Second, even if you thought that this meant some people would quit because they were overworked, that would suggest that there should have been a higher-than-expected drop in personnel—making the paradox worse.