Join 60,000+ competitive exam aspirants
or with email
Your Cart
SubtotalтВ╣0
TotalтВ╣0
Examoogle тАв User тАв info@examoogle.com тАв EE-2024-8821
Chapter 1 of 12 тАв Page 1 of 248ЁЯФТ Protected PDF тАв Watermarked
Join 60,000+ competitive exam aspirants
A CEO stated, 'Implementing a remote work policy will significantly increase employee productivity.' Arguments: I. Employees often spend hours commuting, which causes fatigue. II. Communication between team members becomes difficult without face-to-face interaction. Decide which argument is strong.
Only I is strong
Only II is strong
Both I and II are strong
Neither I nor II is strong
Only I is strong
Test if the argument directly supports or opposes the statement using a 'Why' and 'Is it practical' filter; strong arguments must be both relevant and significant.
Test if the argument directly supports or opposes the statement using a 'Why' and 'Is it practical' filter; strong arguments must be both relevant and significant.
Analyze Argument I
Argument I states that commuting causes fatigue, directly linking the elimination of commuting (via remote work) to increased energy and therefore higher productivity. This is a strong, logical support for the CEO's statement.
Analyze Argument II
Argument II focuses on a potential downside (difficult communication). While this is a relevant concern, in the context of debating the CEO's claim of 'increased productivity,' it serves as a counter-argument rather than a direct refutation of the core claim, as modern tools mitigate these issues. It lacks the strength to invalidate the premise.
B: Incorrect because it focuses on a challenge rather than the primary assertion's validity. C: Incorrect because both are not equally strong in supporting the premise. D: Incorrect because argument I provides a clear, logical justification for the claim.
A is correct because Argument I directly supports the premise by identifying a specific cause of inefficiency (commuting fatigue) that remote work effectively resolves.
In Critical Reasoning, always distinguish between a 'fact' and a 'strong argument.' A strong argument must be logically linked to the conclusion, not just a statement of opinion or a minor disadvantage.