#25 - On average, corporations that encourage frequent

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

It's because of the use of "above-average, Liv. If on average the corporations that have frequent parties have higher profits, they have "above-average" profits. That's another way of describing the situation. If they have higher profits than the average company, they have above-average profits. Answer choice (A) uses that appropriately---that the companies with frequent parties and above-average profits are able to have the parties because of the profits. Answer choice (C) however incorrectly uses "above-average" to apply to EZ-corp, not the companies described in the stimulus.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[Morgan2cats]

Hi PowerScore,

Thank you for your explanation, it's helpful! But I'm confused, is the conclusion discribing a causal relationship or a conditional logic relationship?


Thanks in advance!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Morgan!

Our stimulus sets up a causal relationship: frequent workplace social events lead to/cause higher profits. Therefore, EZ Corp. could have more staff parties to boost their profits. So, in order to weaken our conclusion, we need to find a way to discredit/cast doubt on this causal relationship. As the administrator described in an earlier post, here are the following ways we can do that:

1. Show that an alternative cause exists.
2. Show that the supposed cause exists without the supposed effect.
3. Show that the hypothesized effect exists without the assumed cause.
4. Show that the elements thought to be cause and effect were reversed.
5. Show an effective attack on the data.

Answer Choice A effectively does Option 4, by stating that the cause/effect relationship is actually reversed (i.e. the corporations that have more workplace events are able to do so because they already have higher profits.)

I hope this helps!