A question about a study tests what a comparison between groups can and can’t show. Read the claim at the blank, then name each group and the assumption the comparison depends on. Next, ask what else differs between the groups. If another difference could affect the result, the study can’t tell which cause produced it. Predict the smallest conclusion the text supports, because a possible flaw limits a claim without proving what actually happened.
Hints
- Hint 1
Name the two groups by how they came to work from home. What does the passage say the analysts assumed about them?
- Hint 2
Find the detail the analysts failed to consider. How does it relate to the assumption about motivation?
- Hint 3
Connect that detail to the productivity comparison. Could it affect what the two groups get done even though both groups work from home?
Step-by-step
Check the comparison’s missing cause
Step 1Name the groups and the claim
The analysts compare employees who elected to work from home with employees compelled to do so. Their claim is that telecommuting universally increases productivity, so we need to test whether this comparison supports a conclusion about everyone. Both groups worked remotely, but only one chose it.
- Step 2
Find another possible cause
Why might their productivity differ for a reason other than telecommuting? The analysts treated the groups as equally motivated, but employees forced into remote work might resent the situation. Someone who resents a work arrangement might put less effort into the job. That gives us another possible cause of a productivity difference, so the assumption about motivation needs checking rather than being treated as fact.
- Step 3
Use the flaw the passage names
Which criticisms come from the flaw the passage names? The assumption being tested is that the groups were equally motivated. Positions more compatible with remote work adds a job difference the passage never gives, and typical long-term output compares productivity over different lengths of time without evidence from the passage. Those criticisms add problems the text never raises.
- Step 4
Match the conclusion’s strength
Can the comparison separate telecommuting from employee preference? The wording helps isolate says it can, but the possible effect of resentment hasn’t been separated from the effect of working remotely. The passage says might resent the situation, so the flaw is possible, not proved. Potentially invalid gives that limit, and may depress their productivity explains how the missed resentment could affect the result. Choice A.