Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 16:45

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 276
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 188 [1] , given: 1

Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 11:14
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:36) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a state judge agreed to combine a series of workplace disability cases involving repetitive stress injuries to the hands and wrists. The judge's decision to consolidate into one case hundreds of suits by data entry workers, word processors, newspaper employees, and other workers who use computers is likely to prove detrimental to the computer manufacturing companies being sued, notwithstanding the defense's argument that the cases should not be combined because of the different individuals and workplaces involved.

The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?

The judge's decision to consolidate the suits implies a commonality among the situations, thereby strengthening the plaintiffs' claim that the manufacturers are liable.
Individual rulings in repetitive injury suits often enable manufacturers to escape liability on technical grounds.
The plaintiffs bringing suit against the computer manufacturers have similar employment histories and used similar equipment at their jobs.
The parties accused of liability in workplace injury cases are more likely to settle if the suits are consolidated into one case.
Because consolidated cases tend to receive more publicity than individual rulings, they often result in further lawsuits against manufacturers.
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 897
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 646 [0], given: 18

Re: Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure c [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 19:31
Between B and C. IMO C.
B>> We cannot say for sure that the motive of individual rulings is to escape liability.
C>> If plaintiffs are already having problems because they used such equipments in the past then this will be "detrimental" for the computer manufacturers as it will allow the plaintiffs to sue.

OA pls?
Intern
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 5

Re: Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure c [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2009, 09:19
IMO A
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 330
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

Re: Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure c [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2009, 08:15
I'm confused with this one , still went for C
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 174
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 13

Re: Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure c [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2009, 10:49
netcaesar wrote:
Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a state judge agreed to combine a series of workplace disability cases involving repetitive stress injuries to the hands and wrists. The judge's decision to consolidate into one case hundreds of suits by data entry workers, word processors, newspaper employees, and other workers who use computers is likely to prove detrimental to the computer manufacturing companies being sued, notwithstanding the defense's argument that the cases should not be combined because of the different individuals and workplaces involved.

The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?

The judge's decision to consolidate the suits implies a commonality among the situations, thereby strengthening the plaintiffs' claim that the manufacturers are liable.
Individual rulings in repetitive injury suits often enable manufacturers to escape liability on technical grounds.
The plaintiffs bringing suit against the computer manufacturers have similar employment histories and used similar equipment at their jobs.
The parties accused of liability in workplace injury cases are more likely to settle if the suits are consolidated into one case.
Because consolidated cases tend to receive more publicity than individual rulings, they often result in further lawsuits against manufacturers.

I think the answer is A

A - The judge is combining the cases so must have commonality and obviously the plaintiff (manufacturers) does not like this

B - Can't assume the outcome of the case based on info

C- Can't say. Computer manufacturers are arguing they are saying they are different.

D - Too much to assume here

E - Don't know if they receive more publicity based on the argument above.
Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 119
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2

Re: Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure c [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2009, 15:25
netcaesar wrote:
Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a state judge agreed to combine a series of workplace disability cases involving repetitive stress injuries to the hands and wrists. The judge's decision to consolidate into one case hundreds of suits by data entry workers, word processors, newspaper employees, and other workers who use computers is likely to prove detrimental to the computer manufacturing companies being sued, notwithstanding the defense's argument that the cases should not be combined because of the different individuals and workplaces involved.

The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?

The judge's decision to consolidate the suits implies a commonality among the situations, thereby strengthening the plaintiffs' claim that the manufacturers are liable.
Individual rulings in repetitive injury suits often enable manufacturers to escape liability on technical grounds.
The plaintiffs bringing suit against the computer manufacturers have similar employment histories and used similar equipment at their jobs.
The parties accused of liability in workplace injury cases are more likely to settle if the suits are consolidated into one case.
Because consolidated cases tend to receive more publicity than individual rulings, they often result in further lawsuits against manufacturers.

In my opinion, answer is A.
Going back to the question stem, "The judge's decision to consolidate into one case hundreds of suits ... is LIKELY TO PROVE detrimental to the computer manufacturing companies." I think this provides us a clue as to what the conclusion is. PROVE HOW?
A. Prove how? By consolidating the commonality among the situations hence strengthening the claim against manufacturers
B cites a possible conclusion, not yet conclusive
C provides data/detail of the nature/history of the parties involved
D and E are both assumptions

What's the OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 339
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 14

Re: Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure c [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2009, 17:40
I will go with C , confuesed between A and C , OA pls?
_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 276
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 1

Re: Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure c [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2009, 12:42
OA is A
Re: Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure c   [#permalink] 31 Aug 2009, 12:42
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for 5 11 Nov 2011, 07:06
36 Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause for 21 12 May 2010, 10:02
Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a 5 28 Aug 2009, 11:00
31 Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of 46 11 Dec 2007, 06:28
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of 7 06 Jun 2007, 07:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by