Manhattan test 2

[priyanka.bishnoi]

Absenteeism among employees has decreased steadily over the past several years. Two possible explanations
have been offered. First, improved health insurance has allowed employees to maintain better health. Second,
improved working conditions have improved morale, leading to less desire to avoid work. However, since
absenteeism has also decreased at companies with poor or no health insurance and poor working conditions, one
must conclude that the cause of the decrease is the increased tendency of employers to deduct missed days from
employees’ paychecks. Which of the following indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?
- Employees who lack health insurance often have low morale.
- Companies with poor working conditions are most likely to deduct pay for missed work days
- Most employees are not honest about the reasons that they miss work
- The definition of absenteeism is not clear
- Improved health care, improved working conditions, and fear of losing money are not the only possible explanations
for decreased absenteeism

Do you really think this question is correct.I had a tough time figuring out the answer because of the question type.
You have mentioned the question type as "flaw" however the answer appears to be like a "weak the conclusion"
There is a difference between "flaw" and "weaken the conclusion" questions.
Or do we consider flaw same as "weaken the conclusion" because if i do this i can easily get the correct answer.

[tim]

Well, the flaw problem in CR is just a different way of saying "what's wrong with this picture?". You'll find that many of the subcategories of CR are just fancy variations on the "what's wrong with this picture?" theme. If a slightly different wording of that question will consistently help you get the right answer, i say go for it..

[nehajadoo]

I am down to option b or d but i think d makes a stronger case. May I know what the correct answer is?

[tim]

The answer is E. B strengthens the argument, and D is just an excuse to avoid thinking further about the problem - very reminiscent of the people who find "ambiguity" every time they see a pronoun in SC or who think that every split is an idiom. :) First, no reasonable person would question the definition of "absenteeism", and second, the definition itself is irrelevant to answering the question. Replace the word "absenteeism" with "afjsdl;fasd" and the flaw is still that the person making the argument assumes that because afjsdl;fasd is not caused by X or Y then it must be caused by Z - i.e. failing to consider a fourth option..

[aritra.banerjee]

Well, the wording of the QS is rather confusing because the last sentence begins with 'however' and 'concludes' that the reason for absenteeism is reason Z (X, Y, Z - three options). So this gets me looking for an answer choice that states that X & Y are also reasons and not only Z.

I picked answer choice B, but I do now realize that even with the understanding above, B strengthens the argument - X or Y causes Z so Z is still a reason. But because of my understanding above, I wasn't able to pin point the correct answer in E.

Did anyone else have the same interpretation as I did above?

[jnelson0612]

I will agree with you that GMAT CRs certainly can have confusing wording!