medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Speaker 1: The new policy banning smartphones in the office will undoubtedly increase worker focus and overall productivity. Speaker 2: It may well cut down on distractions, but it also keeps employees from dealing with urgent family matters, and the resulting stress will produce a net decline in performance.
Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 disagree over whether:
- Stress is a genuinely meaningful factor in determining how productive employees turn out to be.
- The smartphone ban will, on balance, leave worker performance better or worse than before.
- Smartphones are, above all other factors, the single leading cause of distraction in the workplace.
- Employees ought, in fairness, to be permitted to attend to family matters during work hours.
- The policy will, at least partly, succeed in cutting the number of on-the-job distractions.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ