Critical reasoning

[gayathri248]

An internal survey revealed that some employees at Company Y had called in sick in order to take care of a sick child. The company's CEO instituted free on-site day care in hopes of reducing the number of employees engaging in this practice. However, the number of employees who called in sick to care for a sick child was actually higher in the sixth month of the on-site day-care program than it had been the month before the program was instituted.

Each of the following, if true, might account for the free day-care plan's apparent lack of success EXCEPT:

A)Many parents at Company Y employ nannies, who care for both sick and healthy children.
B)Many parents declined to use the day care for fear that their sick children would catch a second illness from another sick child.
C)The on-site free day-care center is noisy, hot, and uncomfortable.
D)The sixth month of the on-site day-care program happened to fall at the height of flu season.
E)During the six-month period in question, the number of employees at Company Y increased by 25%.

The OA is A. But doesn't parents with nannies will not be using the on-site day care anyway? How could it attribute to the lack of success if it doesn't apply to them to begin with?

[tim]

EXACTLY!!! The question asks which one doesn't contribute to an explanation, and you've done an excellent job of explaining why A doesn't contribute to an explanation! Remember to read the question stem; EXCEPT questions can be tricky.. :)

[nilendud]

How does 'C' explain the paradox that the - "number of employees who called in sick to care for a sick child was actually higher in the sixth month"

[jnelson0612]

How does 'C' explain the paradox that the - "number of employees who called in sick to care for a sick child was actually higher in the sixth month"

Hi Nilendu,
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the sixth month aspect. If the daycare is noisy, hot, and uncomfortable, by the sixth month many parents are probably not using the daycare anymore. The sixth month may just be a random fluctuation in how many sick children there are. The main idea is that the daycare is NOT solving the absence problem because the conditions are so poor that parents can't leave their children there; thus, they have to take care of the children themselves.

Another possibility is that the daycare conditions are so stressful that children are getting sick simply because they are at the daycare, and again, the conditions are bad enough that a sick child cannot be left there.

I think the main point is that A is the one that most clearly does not contribute to an explanation of the daycare's failure. For a lot of these you have to compare alternatives and then make the best choice.

[Khush]

Hi,

I don't understand answer choice E.

How does choice E explain why the on-site day care didn't reduce the number of employees taking sick leaves to care for a sick child.
E says there was an increase in the number of employees in the company.It doesn't say anything about the reason behind the failure of the on-site day care. Do we need to assume that more employees availed these onsite-daycare service and found some problems with the service, leading to take sick leaves from company to take care of their children?

I am a bit confused with the choice A as well. If nannies take care of both sick and healthy children, there are chances that these sick children will infect the healthy ones.

Please help here.

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

I don't understand answer choice E.

How does choice E explain why the on-site day care didn't reduce the number of employees taking sick leaves to care for a sick child.
E says there was an increase in the number of employees in the company.It doesn't say anything about the reason behind the failure of the on-site day care. Do we need to assume that more employees availed these onsite-daycare service and found some problems with the service, leading to take sick leaves from company to take care of their children?

Look carefully at what you're trying to explain.

The number of employees who called in sick to care for a sick child was actually higher in the sixth month of the on-site day-care program than it had been the month before the program was instituted

You don't necessarily have to condemn the day care program itself -- anything that would cause this number to increase is a valid explanation.
If there are 25% more people in the company, then you'll likely have more people in the day care AND more people calling in sick. More of everything.

If the first purple word were "percentage", then choice E would be irrelevant.

[RonPurewal]

I am a bit confused with the choice A as well. If nannies take care of both sick and healthy children, there are chances that these sick children will infect the healthy ones.

Maybe so, but this idea doesn't explain a difference between the given months. (The employees didn't start using the nannies at exactly the time when the day care opened.)

[Khush]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for the explanation..

I understand that since the number of employees has increased now, more employees are likely to use day care facility.

I am not getting from here: "AND more people calling in sick".

I feel there is a missing link here (between more people in the day care and more people calling sick)
I have to assume that more people availing the day care are calling in sick because of some problem in day care.

Please explain what i am missing here.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Thank you for the explanation..

I understand that since the number of employees has increased now, more employees are likely to use day care facility.

I am not getting from here: "AND more people calling in sick".

I feel there is a missing link here (between more people in the day care and more people calling sick)
I have to assume that more people availing the day care are calling in sick because of some problem in day care.

Please explain what i am missing here.

The point is that there are 25% more employees. So, all else equal, you'll have 25% more of absolutely everything.
You'll have 25% more cars in the parking lot.
You'll have 25% more employees with service dogs.
You'll have 25% more employees who wear red underwear.
You'll have 25% more employees who call in sick to take care of a sick child.
You'll have 25% more employees who call in sick to go to the beach.
Etc.

[Khush]

Thank You Ron !!

Got it..
I was getting confused for bringing in "the day care facility" in between.
Choice E is not attacking the lacuna in the day care facility. Rather it is giving a possible cause for the increase in the number of employees calling in sick during the sixth month of the day care program. It is not necessary that these new employees have availed this facility.

Am i right?

[RonPurewal]

Thank You Ron !!

Got it..
I was getting confused for bringing in "the day care facility" in between.
Choice E is not attacking the lacuna in the day care facility. Rather it is giving a possible cause for the increase in the number of employees calling in sick during the sixth month of the day care program. It is not necessary that these new employees have availed this facility.

Am i right?

What is a "lacuna"?

The rest sounds correct.

[Khush]

Hi Ron,
I meant to say drawback or shortfall in the on-site-day care facility.

[RonPurewal]

If that isn't clear, just go back to the question, which asks for an explanation of the "apparent lack of success".

"Apparent" refers to the evidence that can actually be seen. That evidence is the number of people calling in sick, not anything directly related to the day care center.

Analogy:
If my car is not in my garage, then my "apparent absence" could be explained by the fact that my car is at the mechanic's for repairs -- even if I'm actually home.
I.e., if you are asked to explain my "apparent absence", then whether I'm actually absent is immaterial.

[avais_k]

(E) isn't a clear answer choice to me: Even if the number of employees with sick children at home does increase by 25%, all employees (included the new people) are eligible for day care facilities. I don't see why this should cause an increase in the number of people on sick leave due to sick children. All should use the facilities. Hence it doesn't explain anything.

[RonPurewal]

(E) isn't a clear answer choice to me: Even if the number of employees with sick children at home does increase by 25%, all employees (included the new people) are eligible for day care facilities. I don't see why this should cause an increase in the number of people on sick leave due to sick children. All should use the facilities. Hence it doesn't explain anything.

All else equal, a 25% increase in employees should, on average, push everything up by 25%"”including both the employees using the daycare and the employees calling in sick.
People are still doing the same stuff; now there are just 5 people doing the same stuff for every 4 there were before.