An employee proposes allowing one day of remote work per week, and the supervisor says: "Once we agree to that, everyone will stop coming to the office, and the company will eventually fall apart." The employee wants to respond with a well-founded argument without being accused of name-calling. Which approach is most appropriate?

Answer: B

• AThat's a slippery slope fallacy; I won't discuss this with you.✗ Incorrect. Labeling the other person's reasoning as a fallacy does not constitute an argument; one must specifically point out where the chain breaks and what evidence is missing, otherwise one is also avoiding the issue.
• BThere's no evidence that remote work necessarily leads to losing control; suggest a three-month pilot with clear performance metrics and attendance requirements, and evaluate based on data.✓ Correct. This points out the lack of necessary evidence and proposes actionable rules to prevent the worst outcome, shifting the discussion from a 'terrible outcome' to concrete conditions and probabilities.
• COther companies allow remote work, so we should too.✗ Incorrect. This is an appeal to popularity or majority; what other companies do does not prove what our company can do, nor does it address whether remote work leads to losing control.
• DYou don't trust us, supervisor.✗ Incorrect. This speculates about the supervisor's motives, constituting an appeal to motive and ad hominem, and does not address whether the causal chain of 'losing control' holds.