GMAT Focus EditionVerbal ReasoningHard
A tech company introduced a new project management software, claiming it would increase team productivity by 20%. After six months, internal reports showed that project completion times had indeed decreased by an average of 15%. However, a significant number of employees reported feeling more stressed and overworked. Which of the following, if true, would most strongly suggest that the observed decrease in completion times was NOT a genuine increase in productivity?
- AThe new software required extensive training, initially causing a temporary dip in productivity.
- BThe company's main competitor also reported a similar decrease in project completion times without using new software.
- CSome employees found the software's interface to be counterintuitive and difficult to use.
- DThe company simultaneously implemented a new policy mandating longer working hours for all project teams.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. The company simultaneously implemented a new policy mandating longer working hours for all project teams.
The company attributes decreased completion times to the new software. If longer working hours were simultaneously mandated (Option A), then the faster completion could be due to more hours worked, not increased efficiency from the software. This suggests the 'productivity' increase was an artifact of increased effort, not genuine software-driven efficiency.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This explains an initial dip, but doesn't challenge the later observed decrease in completion times as a genuine productivity gain from the software.
- B. A competitor's similar results without new software might suggest a broader industry trend or another common factor, but it doesn't directly explain *this company's* specific link between *their* software and completion times.
- C. Difficulty with the interface would likely *decrease* productivity, not contribute to faster completion times, so it doesn't explain the observation.
Challenging Causal Attribution
Disputing that a specific cause is responsible for an observed effect, often by introducing a more direct or significant alternative cause that occurred concurrently.
- Questions the 'why' behind an outcome.
- Often involves identifying a confounding event or variable.
- Focuses on whether the claimed cause is truly the primary driver.
Memory trick: Don't credit the new tool if someone else is pulling the strings.