Summarize Argument
The author concludes the EZ Corporation could increase profits by having more staff parties during business hours. He supports this with a study: on average, corporations that encourage frequent social events in the workplace have high profits than corporations that don’t.
Notable Assumptions
The author believes that social events that happen in the workplace, such as those cited in the statistic, happen during work hours. This means the author assumes that the productivity loss of holding a social event during work hours would be outweighed by whatever benefits such events bring to the workplace. He also believes, based on a correlation between workplace social events and higher profits, that the former causes the latter. The author therefore assumes the relationship isn’t reversed (i.e. higher profits causing workplace social events).
A
The great majority of corporations that encourage frequent social events in the workplace do so at least in part because they are already earning above-average profits.
Workplace social events don’t cause higher profits. Corporations earning high profits have the means and financial freedom to host such events.
B
Corporations that have frequent staff parties after business hours sometimes have higher profits than do corporations that have frequent staff parties during business hours.
We’re not talking about how to maximize profits. Even if this were true, holding social events during business hours may still raise profits to some degree.
C
The EZ Corporation already earns above-average profits, and it almost never brings play into the workplace.
Workplace social events could still raise the EZ Corporation’s profits.
D
Frequent social events in a corporate workplace leave employees with less time to perform their assigned duties than they would otherwise have.
We don’t know if this would decrease profits. Perhaps corporate employees work well with strict time constraints.
E
At one time the EZ Corporation encouraged social events in the workplace more frequently than it currently does, but it has not always been one of the most profitable corporations of its size.
The author never says that workplace social events will make a corporation among the most profitable of its size. He simply says hosting such events will boost profits.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorial argues that the proposal to dam the river is misguided. Building the dam would have negative consequences. The dam would prevent the flow of nutrients, causing fish to feed elsewhere. The loss of the fish would cost $10 million annually (which is much more than the cost of the cleanup from flooding that the dam was built to prevent).
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the editorial’s refutation of the residents who propose damming the river: “their position is misguided.”
A
The Smithfield River should be dammed to prevent flooding.
This is the position described in the context that the editorial refutes.
B
Nutrients from the Smithfield River are essential to the local fish population.
This is unstated but shows why the fish would feed elsewhere if the nutrients were gone. It therefore contributes to the explanation of why the position is misguided. It also isn’t necessarily true - maybe the fish want, but don’t need, the nutrients.
C
Damming the Smithfield River is not worth the high construction costs for such a project.
The editorial’s argument is not about the construction costs. The editorial supports the argument that the position is misguided by showing the costs of unintended consequences.
D
For Redhook to build a dam on the Smithfield River would be a mistake.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion. The position is misguided, therefore it would be a mistake to go through with the plan.
E
The Smithfield River floods cost Redhook $3 million every year.
This is context that sets up the proposal that the editorial ultimately refutes.