rseglia wrote:
A sandhog claims that he has a list of thirty deceased workers who worked as a group on a tunnel that cut through a radon-intense area. He started his list after an oncologist reported that the incidences of cancer among sandhogs were five times greater than the incidence of cancer among other construction workers. The tunnel contractor states that its records show that no sandhogs working on the tunnel were exposed to more radiation than was safe.
If true, which of the following statements most damages the contractor’s claim?
sandhog: i have a list of 30 workers who died while working in a radon-int area
oncologist: cancer among sandhogs 5 times greater than other const workers
contractor: no sandhogs has been exposed to above threshold radiation
(A) The medical records of the oncologist were accurate.
This is an assumption, we are not looking for this
(B) All thirty of the deceased sandhogs died of radiation-related cancer.
if they died from radiation-related cancer, maybe the radiation level was not below the threshold
(C) The contractor has denied requests to inspect its radiation records.
can damage, but not as (B)
(D) Sandhogs contract illness at higherthan-normal rates.
not determinant
(E) The remaining sandhogs that worked on the tunnel show no signs of illness.
out of scope
Feedback appreciated.
B establishes, thereby eliminating any doubts, that the deaths happened due to radiation- related cancer. It is not upto the mark that one may think of but relatively it does its job well.
C has problems, one that the intention of contractor is questionable, therefore weakening contractors claim and two that contractor might be legally protected to not show the records. Most importantly we are not sure how C would help weaken the claim.