Psychologists have found that

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: would be15% picked this

   Implementing flexible schedules would be an effective means of increasing the job satisfaction and efficiency of managers who do

   The passage tentatively speculates that the reason flexible scheduling doesn't usually increase managers' job satisfaction or efficiency is because they already have the autonomy to adjust their own schedules. But it says that may be the reason. This answer is acting like it definitely is the reason, and so if you found managers to whom it didn't apply (i.e. they don't already have scheduling autonomy), then flexible schedules would be sure to work.

   15%
2. B

   Out of Scope: overall morale18% picked this

   Flexible-schedule policies should be expected to improve the morale of some individual employees but not the overall morale

   Nothing in the paragraph talks about the effect of flexible scheduling on "overall morale", so we have no way to speculate whether flexible scheduling would / wouldn't improve overall morale.

   18%
3. C

   Opposite, if anything4% picked this

   Flexible schedules should be expected to substantially improve a company's productivity and employee satisfaction in

   The final sentence says that the benefits of flexible scheduling dissipate somewhat over time, so it's too strong (if not contradicted) that flexible schedules would substantially improve productivity and satisfaction in the long run.

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: little correlation9% picked this

   There is little correlation between managers' job satisfaction and their ability to set their

   The paragraph makes it seem like implementing flexible scheduling might not increase managers' job satisfaction because they already have the autonomy to adjust their own schedules. So there might be a big correlation between satisfaction and flexible scheduling, and since the managers already have flexibility, they already have satisfaction.

   9%
5. E

   Correct54% picked this

   The typical benefits of flexible-schedule policies cannot be reliably inferred from observations of the effects of

   Why this is right

   This just finds a complicated way of talking about the contrast described, in terms of the causal impact of flexible scheduling. Flexible scheduling increases job satisfaction among nonmanagerial employees, but it typically doesn't increases job satisfaction among managers. So if we just observed the effect of flexible scheduling policies on managers, we would see "usually doesn't increase job satisfaction". Yet it would be an unreliable inference to think "flexible scheduling typically does not increase job satisfaction" because it typically does! We might have worried about whether it's fair to call the reaction of flexible scheduling of nonmanagerial employees the "typical" benefit. Why should we call their reaction to it the typical reaction? Why isn't the managerial reaction to it the typical one? This is probably just a common sense "numbers game" that LSAC had in mind. Are there more managers or nonmanagerial employees in the world? Obviously, there are more non-manager employees. So since flexible scheduling increases their job satisfaction and since most employees are non-managerial, it's fair to call the experience of nonmanagerial employees the 'typical' experience.

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

   54%