Last year a large firm

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   The three divisions that were eliminated were well run and had the potential

   This doesn't give us any way of explaining how we got rid of three divisions that accounted for 25% of the workforce and yet we only eliminated 15% of the workforce.

   1%
2. B

   Deepens Paradox3% picked this

   Normal attrition in the retained divisions continued to reduce staff because no new people were

   This answer would help explain how the workforce could have decreased by more than 25%. It's saying, "in addition to the workers fired when we eliminated those three divisions, we also have other workers quitting from the remaining divisions." We need to explain how the workforce decreased by less than 25%, so this answer goes in the opposite direction.

   3%
3. C

   No Impact4% picked this

   Some of the employees in the eliminated divisions were eligible for early retirement and

   This is saying that at least one employee in Division X, Y, or Z said, "Oh, the division is getting eliminated at the end of the year and so I'll be laid off or reassigned? Hmm, I'll just retire early, I think." Since this answer is talking about people who left the company, it doesn't help us explain our mystery. We have retained more employees than we should have. We thought we were only retaining 75% of the workforce, but we retained 85% of it. The correct answer needs to tell us about people who stayed working for the firm, even though their division was eliminated.

   4%
4. D

   Correct90% picked this

   As the divisions were being eliminated some of their employees were assigned

   Why this is right

   This is what we were predicting. In order for the math to work, some of the employees who worked in the divisions we eliminated need to still be working for the firm. If we're told that some of the employees from those eliminated divisions were assigned to other divisions, then that helps us explain how they could still be working for the firm. We had a workforce of 100 people. We eliminated three divisions that employed 25 of those people, but 10 of those 25 got assigned to divisions that weren't being eliminated. Thus, 15 people lost their jobs, 10 people changed their job within the firm. And so the firm's workforce only decreased by 15 people (15%).

   Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   90%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   Employees in the retained divisions were forced to work faster to offset the loss of

   This doesn't give us any way of explaining how we got rid of three divisions that accounted for 25% of the workforce and yet we only eliminated 15% of the workforce. This answer would allow us to explain a riddle of how we could eliminate 25% of the workforce but only decrease productivity by 15%.

   3%