Loading...
Researchers have found that, allowing for variations attributable to the size of a company's workforce and to the company's business sector, companies that have low staff turnover tend to have greater labor productivity than companies with higher turnover. Since high staff turnover negatively affects workers' sense of community and identification with company goals, clearly these adverse effects on staff attitudes are the cause of the decline in productivity as turnover increases.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Researchers have found that, allowing for variations attributable to the size of a company's workforce and to the company's business sector, companies that have low staff turnover tend to have greater labor productivity than companies with higher turnover. |
|
| Since high staff turnover negatively affects workers' sense of community and identification with company goals, clearly these adverse effects on staff attitudes are the cause of the decline in productivity as turnover increases. |
|
The argument starts with research evidence showing a correlation between low turnover and high productivity, then jumps to explaining this relationship by claiming that turnover damages worker attitudes, which in turn causes the productivity decline.
Poor staff attitudes caused by high turnover are what cause the decline in productivity.
This is a causal argument that moves from correlation to causation. The author takes the research finding (correlation between turnover and productivity) and assumes that one specific factor - damaged worker attitudes - must be the cause of the productivity difference.
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the author's causal conclusion that poor staff attitudes (lack of community and company identification) are what cause the productivity decline when turnover increases.
The author makes a specific causal claim: high turnover → workers feel disconnected from community and company goals → lower productivity. We need to respect the fact that low turnover companies do have higher productivity, but we can challenge whether the attitude explanation is the real cause.
To weaken this argument, we need to find alternative explanations for why high turnover leads to lower productivity that don't involve staff attitudes. We could show that there are other direct consequences of high turnover that would hurt productivity regardless of how workers feel about the company.
This directly weakens the argument by offering an alternative explanation for why high turnover leads to lower productivity. Instead of the author's theory about damaged staff attitudes, Choice A shows that turnover itself creates operational inefficiencies - laying off workers and hiring new ones forces continuing staff to spend time on activities that don't immediately contribute to output. This gives us a competing causal mechanism that doesn't depend on workers feeling disconnected from the company. When we have alternative explanations for the same correlation, it weakens confidence in the original causal claim.
This doesn't weaken the argument. It tells us that technology introduction can cause both increased productivity goals and higher turnover, but this doesn't challenge the author's explanation for why turnover hurts productivity. The author's claim about staff attitudes causing productivity decline could still be true even in cases where technology drives turnover.
This is irrelevant to the argument. The author already accounted for company size variations in the research findings, and knowing that large companies tend to have higher turnover doesn't challenge the causal explanation about why turnover hurts productivity.
This doesn't weaken the argument because it discusses a different scenario entirely. The author's claim is specifically about how high turnover damages staff attitudes and productivity. Learning that staff morale can suffer in other circumstances (when business environment is bad) doesn't challenge the turnover-attitude-productivity relationship.
This is also irrelevant to the core argument. Knowing that small companies have stronger worker community feelings doesn't challenge the author's explanation for why high turnover leads to lower productivity. The argument is about the causal mechanism, not about comparing company sizes.