LSAT Explanation PT 35, S4, Q4: Last year a large firm set

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the difference in the planned versus the actual reduction in the workforce? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Paradox question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the passage and break it down into simpler terms. A large firm had a goal to decrease its workforce by 25 percent. To achieve this, they planned to eliminate three divisions, which made up 25 percent of the workforce, and not hire any new people. However, after executing this plan, the firm found that its workforce had only decreased by 15 percent. Our task is to identify the factor that best explains this discrepancy between the planned and actual reduction in the workforce.

This is a Paradox question type, which means we need to find an answer choice that helps resolve the apparent contradiction or discrepancy in the passage.

Now, let's analyze each answer choice:

a) The three divisions that were eliminated were well run and had the potential to earn profits.

This answer choice doesn't help explain the difference between the planned and actual reduction in the workforce. The profitability or efficiency of the divisions doesn't provide any information about why the workforce didn't decrease as much as planned.

b) Normal attrition in the retained divisions continued to reduce staff because no new people were added to the firm.

This answer choice suggests that the workforce should have decreased even more than planned due to normal attrition. However, this doesn't explain why the actual reduction was less than the planned reduction. If anything, it creates more of a paradox.

c) Some of the employees in the eliminated divisions were eligible for early retirement and chose that option.

This answer choice doesn't help explain the discrepancy either. If employees in the eliminated divisions chose early retirement, it would still contribute to the reduction in the workforce, but it doesn't provide a reason for the actual reduction being less than the planned reduction.

d) As the divisions were being eliminated, some of their employees were assigned to other divisions.

This answer choice provides a plausible explanation for the discrepancy between the planned and actual reduction in the workforce. If employees from the eliminated divisions were reassigned to other divisions within the firm, it would mean that the overall workforce didn't decrease by the full 25 percent as planned. Instead, some of the employees were retained, leading to a smaller reduction of 15 percent. This answer choice resolves the paradox.

e) Employees in the retained divisions were forced to work faster to offset the loss of the eliminated divisions.

This answer choice doesn't address the discrepancy in the planned versus actual reduction in the workforce. It only discusses how the remaining employees had to work faster to compensate for the loss of the eliminated divisions. It doesn't provide any information about why the workforce didn't decrease as much as planned.

Based on our analysis, the correct answer is D, as it best explains the difference between the planned and actual reduction in the workforce.