Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a Critical Reasoning question that asks to identify a flaw in the company's argument. The claim is comparative ("work better"), so the reasoning must be based on a valid comparison.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The company's claim is that flexible hours lead to better work. The phrase "work better" implies a comparison: better than they would under a different system, presumably standard hours.
- (A) Employees completing work early would seem to support the claim that they work better, not expose a flaw.
- (B) Different departments working different hours is an expected feature of a flexible hours policy, not a flaw in the reasoning about its effectiveness.
- (C) If the company has not compared the performance of employees on flexible hours to the performance of employees on standard hours, then there is no basis for the comparative claim "work better." The company is making a conclusion without the necessary evidence. This is a significant logical flaw.
- (D) Employees valuing flexibility might explain *why* they work better, which would strengthen the company's claim rather than weaken it.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The reasoning is flawed because a comparative conclusion has been drawn without making the necessary comparison. Option (C) points this out directly.