Manager: Our company's new employee wellness program, which offers free gym memberships and healthy cooking classes, has been a resounding success. Since its implementation six months ago, employee absenteeism has decreased by 15%, and productivity has increased by 10%. Clearly, investing in employee wellness directly leads to a healthier and more productive workforce.
- AEmployees who are already highly motivated and health-conscious are more likely to participate in wellness programs.
- BDuring the same six-month period, the company also implemented a new incentive program that rewards employees for perfect attendance and exceeding productivity targets.
- CBefore the wellness program, the company had unusually high rates of absenteeism and low productivity compared to industry averages.
- DMany employees enrolled in the wellness program but did not consistently utilize the gym memberships or attend the cooking classes.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. During the same six-month period, the company also implemented a new incentive program that rewards employees for perfect attendance and exceeding productivity targets.
The manager concludes that the wellness program *directly* led to decreased absenteeism and increased productivity. Option A introduces a strong alternative cause: a new incentive program for attendance and productivity implemented at the same time. This makes it impossible to 'clearly' attribute the improvements solely to the wellness program, thus severely weakening the manager's causal conclusion.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This is a selection bias issue, suggesting that the program attracts certain types of employees, but it doesn't introduce an alternative cause for the *improvements* seen across the workforce (15% decrease in absenteeism, 10% increase in productivity).
- C. This provides context but doesn't directly challenge the causal link between the wellness program and the observed improvements; it just means there was more room for improvement.
- D. This weakens the argument by suggesting the wellness program itself might not be effective, but it doesn't introduce an *alternative cause* for the observed improvements in the same way Option A does.
Alternative Cause Flaw
An alternative cause flaw occurs when an argument attributes a particular effect to one cause, but another equally or more plausible cause could explain the same effect, thereby weakening the original causal claim.
- Presents a different factor that could be responsible for the outcome.
- Challenges the uniqueness or primacy of the proposed cause.
- Often involves overlooking external variables or confounding factors.
Memory trick: Don't assume one path when another equally leads to the same destination.