PrepTest 120, Section 4, Question 23
A television manufacturing plant has a total of(50 more words not shown)
The argument is most vulnerable(7 more words not shown)
- Aignores the possibility(17 more words not shown)
- Bfails to show(11 more words not shown)
- Ctakes for granted(21 more words not shown)
- Doverlooks the possibility(10 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The remaining employees can still miss work. The plant has 1,000 employees and usually has about 990 present. We know that when exactly 990 show up, production stays normal. But firing ten employees doesn't mean the other 990 will suddenly have perfect attendance.
If ten of those remaining workers are absent, only 980 people will be there. Or keep the same one-percent absence rate: one percent of 990 is 9.9, leaving an average of 980.1 present. Either way, permanently cutting the workforce changes how many people we can expect on the floor.
What we’re looking for
We haven't been told that production definitely falls below that level. The problem is that the evidence about working with 990 people doesn't establish what happens with fewer. For the flaw question, look for the overlooked effect of continuing absences after the layoffs.
Working the answers
- A
If the remaining workers became more productive, that could help the plant avoid losing output. It's a possibility favorable to the conclusion, not the missing concern that makes the proposed cut questionable. We don't undermine the plan by suggesting that the smaller workforce might compensate for the reduction.
- BCorrect
The argument treats firing ten employees as if it simply reproduces a day when ten of the original 1,000 are absent. But after the firing, absences can reduce attendance below 990. To rely on the old attendance level, the author would need reason to expect fewer absences. No such change has been established.
- C
The author doesn't claim that normal production is possible only with no more than ten absences. We're told that ten absences are compatible with normal production, not that eleven necessarily prevent it. This answer adds a strict limit the argument never states or needs to assume.
- D
Some employees could be especially important, such as a supervisor with an essential role. But the conclusion says the plant could fire ten employees; it doesn't say it could fire any ten it chose. The plant could keep the crucial workers. That concern about whom to fire doesn't address the continuing absences among the workers it keeps.
- E
The argument doesn't claim that staffing numbers never affect production. It makes the much narrower claim that this particular ten-person cut would preserve output. The author could agree that firing hundreds of employees would reduce production. E turns a limited prediction into a sweeping assumption.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.