Problem 18

Explanation

The Director's argument states a causal relationship: Moving to a far location $\rightarrow$ Employees resign.

To weaken this argument, we need to find a statement showing that the relocation should not be a strong reason for employees to quit, or that there are other factors making employees stay despite the move.

Options Analysis

1. First option: "Employee homes are far from the company." This actually strengthens the argument that the new distant location burdens the employees.
2. Second option: "Employees are cared for by the company." If the company cares for its employees (e.g., ensures welfare, listens to aspirations, or provides supporting facilities), then logically employees would feel valued and would not easily resign just because of a relocation. This statement attacks the assumption that relocation immediately causes discomfort leading to resignation, as the "company care" factor mitigates those negative impacts.
3. Third option: "Employee families are far from the company." Irrelevant directly or could strengthen the reason for discomfort.
4. Fourth & Fifth options: Regarding transport incentives/fares. While logical, the option "cared for by the company" is more general and fundamental, covering all forms of care (including incentives, work comfort, etc.). In the context of this problem, the provided key answer focuses on the aspect of company care in general.

Therefore, the statement that employees are cared for by the company weakens the claim that relocation is the sole or valid main cause for the mass resignation.