Question

In 2018, a medium-sized company implemented a remote work policy allowing employees to work from home two days a week. A study before the policy was introduced showed average employee productivity scores. A follow-up study conducted two years later showed that productivity among employees had increased by 25%. The company concluded that remote work boosts employee productivity. Meanwhile, a separate study of two similar companies that had allowed remote work for over a decade showed no significant change in productivity during the same two-year period. The results of the final study mentioned above:

• A. indirectly supports the conclusion that remote work policies could enhance productivity at least in the short term.
• B. prove that factors aside from remote work might explain the productivity increase observed in the first company.
• C. reveal that employees at different companies may react differently to remote work arrangements.
• D. show that the effects of remote work on productivity do not differ significantly between short-term and long-term implementations.
• E. contradict the conclusion reached by the first company's study.

Hint:

When a second study is introduced as a point of comparison, analyze the key difference between the study groups. Here, the difference is the *duration* of the policy (new vs. long-standing). The results should be interpreted in light of this difference.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept
This question asks for the logical relationship between a second study and the conclusion of a first study. We must analyze how the findings of the second study affect the initial conclusion.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation


First Company's Study: Implemented remote work in 2018. By 2020, productivity was up 25%. Conclusion: Remote work boosts productivity.
Second Study (of other companies): Had remote work for over a decade. Between 2018 and 2020, productivity showed no significant change.
What does the second study tell us? It shows that in a company where remote work is already a long-standing, established policy, there is no ongoing productivity boost. This suggests that the productivity boost might be a one-time effect associated with the *introduction* of the policy, rather than a continuous effect of the policy itself. Let's evaluate how this affects the first company's conclusion: "remote work boosts employee productivity."

The first company saw a boost when they *introduced* the policy.
The other companies, which introduced the policy long ago, saw no boost in the same period.
This contrast suggests that the boost is a short-term or transitional effect. The second study doesn't contradict the first; it helps refine it. It shows that the boost happened in the company that just made the change, but not in the companies where the change was old news. This supports the idea that the *introduction* of the policy caused a short-term boost.
Step 3: Final Answer


(A) This aligns with our analysis. The second study, by showing no effect in long-term situations, isolates the productivity gain to the period when the policy is new. This indirectly supports the idea that the new policy caused a short-term enhancement.
(B) It doesn't prove other factors were involved; it helps to specify the nature of the remote work effect itself.
(C) While possibly true, it's not the primary logical function of the second study's results.
(D) It shows the exact opposite: the effects *do* differ. There's a boost in the short-term implementation and no boost in the long-term one.
(E) It does not contradict the finding that productivity rose in the first company. It provides context that suggests the effect is temporary.
Option (A) is the best description of the logical relationship.