PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 15
Midlevel managers at large corporations are unlikely to(15 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(6 more words not shown)
- AThe compensation paid(10 more words not shown)
- BMidlevel managers have(9 more words not shown)
- CStaff morale and(8 more words not shown)
- DDepartmental workloads at(9 more words not shown)
- EMany large corporations(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can imagine why a manager would resist cutting staff. These are people the manager knows, perhaps along with their families. Even if the department has more workers than it needs, recommending that someone lose a job could be hard.
That's a possible explanation, not something the passage establishes. There could be other reasons too. A manager might be attached to running a large department or have a personal incentive to keep more employees. We need reasons for the reluctance, not a claim that the extra staff are actually necessary right now.
What we’re looking for
The question asks which answer does not support the claim. Four choices should give us a reason managers are unlikely to propose cuts. One won't. Keep asking what each fact gives the manager a reason to do.
Working the answers
- A
More employees mean more compensation for the manager. That creates a direct financial reason to resist reductions: recommending a smaller department could mean recommending a smaller paycheck. It supports the claim about reluctance even when the department is overstaffed.
- B
Extra staff make the manager's own workload lighter. Reducing staff could leave the manager with more work, so the manager has a personal reason to leave things as they are. Whether that's good for the company is a separate question.
- C
Cuts could leave the remaining employees unhappy and less productive. The manager would have to deal with that fallout, perhaps including people upset that their friends lost jobs. Avoiding those consequences gives the manager a reason not to suggest layoffs.
- D
Overstaffed today might mean barely enough staff next month. If workloads swing substantially and unpredictably, managers may want to keep employees available for the next increase. This explains resistance to cuts without denying that the department currently has too many workers.
- ECorrect
Early retirement is a way to reduce staff. Merely making that option available doesn't explain why managers would avoid suggesting reductions. It tells us how employees could leave, not why a manager would want them to stay. The other choices supply motives or practical reasons for resistance; E supplies a method.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.