Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 20 Oct 2014, 23:48

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

CR-Industrial accidents

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 93
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

CR-Industrial accidents [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 09:16
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Guys,

Could you try the CRbelow? Please explain your answer.

Q19. Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do. Since, even after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.
D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 881
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 7

 [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 09:23
I will go for "D"

basically argument says X----->Y, whereas answer D says Y----->X. Hence weakens the argument.

what is OA?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 177
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 10:49
I like C
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1097
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 11:51
Hmm, and I like B. If you make the "drinking-problem people" work in non-safety sensitive jobs, and if many accidents happen in non-safety sensitive jobs, then you didn't really address the problem completely

I don't like C because it says that workers, in fear of losing the jobs if they sought treatment for a drinking problem, conceal the problem. But we aren't talking about workers losing jobs anyway.

and not D because "exacerbate" seems to hint that the drinking problem is already there. So, D in fact supports the argument.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2003
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR-Industrial accidents [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 18:04
dvtohir wrote:
Guys,

Could you try the CRbelow? Please explain your answer.

Q19. Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do. Since, even after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.
D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.



I pick answer B.

HereтАЩs how I interpret the stem:

Accidents are *more* common when *some* of the people in high-risk jobs have drinking problems. To reduce risk of accidents, employers should keep people with drinking problems away from high-risk jobs.

Things to consider:
To most effectively reduce risk, we should target those who cause the most accidents. The stem says that accidents are more common but doesnтАЩt say that high-risk people cause most of the accidents. Also, more common can be a little more or a lot more.

Why Choice B:
If many of the accidents are caused by employees who donтАЩt hold high-risk jobs, then eliminating those people with drinking problems from high-risk positions wonтАЩt really help reduce risk of accidents.

Why I didnтАЩt pick the following:
Choice A тАУ Irrelevant.
Choice C - The employer didnтАЩt say it would fire the people with drinking problem, but just switch them to low-risk jobs.
Choice D тАУ This supports the employerтАЩs argument to keep the drunks out of those high-risk jobs.
Choice E тАУ Only *some* accidents are caused by equipment failure, which means most are still caused by people (and possibly the people with drinking problem); this sort of supports the argument.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 326
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 18:34
one more vote for B.

Javed.

Cheers!
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Re: CR-Industrial accidents [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 18:49
dvtohir wrote:
Guys,

Could you try the CRbelow? Please explain your answer.

Q19. Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do. Since, even after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.

Irrelevant.

B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.

Workplace is too broad. The stem talks about industrial accidents. Also, even if employees who don't hold safety-sensitive jobs cause accidents - this doesn't rule out that those who drink don't cause accidents and hence aren't a threat as described above. SO this doesn't STILL weaken the argument.

C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.

This does not weaken. It only says that the workers would conceal and
hence worksite accidents would continue


D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.

CORRECT. This is right because this shifts the focus of accidents stemming from drinking problem in safety sensitive jobs alone to saying that SAFETY SENSITIVE Jobs by exacerbating problems are a cause of accidents. Hence this weakens the proposition alleging that it is people with drinking problems who cause accidents.


E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.

Sure they may be. But the drinking employees causing accidents still remain. Doesn't weaken

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1133
Location: India
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 18:52
I'm picking B.
_________________

Trying hard to conquer Quant.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 281
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Apr 2007, 21:12
This is C

D is focusing on only a subset of people
any personal problems they may have

C says people (all) will hide the problem as a result increase the risk of accident
_________________

AimHigher

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 26 Apr 2007, 01:00
AimHigher wrote:
This is C

D is focusing on only a subset of people
any personal problems they may have

C says people (all) will hide the problem as a result increase the risk of accident


Agree with AimHigher...I think D rather supports the argument...If the safety-sensitive jobs further worsen the problem of drinking people then it is better not to take them in the jobs.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 93
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 26 Apr 2007, 03:27
Guys,

Thank you all for your explanations.

By POE, my pick was B. But the Referenced (Not official ) key is C. I think C is correct because (as AimHigher saysтАж) it takes into consideration ALL the employees.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 26 Apr 2007, 07:58
C.
Director
Director
User avatar
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 736
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 4

Re: CR-Industrial accidents [#permalink] New post 27 Apr 2007, 01:14
umbdude wrote:
dvtohir wrote:
Guys,

Could you try the CRbelow? Please explain your answer.

Q19. Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do. Since, even after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.
D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.



I pick answer B.

HereтАЩs how I interpret the stem:

Accidents are *more* common when *some* of the people in high-risk jobs have drinking problems. To reduce risk of accidents, employers should keep people with drinking problems away from high-risk jobs.

Things to consider:
To most effectively reduce risk, we should target those who cause the most accidents. The stem says that accidents are more common but doesnтАЩt say that high-risk people cause most of the accidents. Also, more common can be a little more or a lot more.

Why Choice B:
If many of the accidents are caused by employees who donтАЩt hold high-risk jobs, then eliminating those people with drinking problems from high-risk positions wonтАЩt really help reduce risk of accidents.

Why I didnтАЩt pick the following:
Choice A тАУ Irrelevant.
Choice C - The employer didnтАЩt say it would fire the people with drinking problem, but just switch them to low-risk jobs.
Choice D тАУ This supports the employerтАЩs argument to keep the drunks out of those high-risk jobs.
Choice E тАУ Only *some* accidents are caused by equipment failure, which means most are still caused by people (and possibly the people with drinking problem); this sort of supports the argument.


I think it is not B, because "most" and "many" can have different meanings depending on the context. Here you are assuming that "many" means "most". Further, many is a relative term. For me 2 can be many. And for somebody else, many can be 2000 incidents.

what does "bar" in the statement means? Is it removing from jobs or shifting to low-risk jobs? I think it means removing from jobs. Hence, employees might hide information on their drinking habits. And suggested approach will not work. C is weakening the conclusion and is the answer.

D is strengthening the conclusion to a certain extent. When there is stress, people who received treatment for drinking problems will again turn to drinking. Hence, they should be barred.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 299
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 27 Apr 2007, 02:50
The Answer is C

The claim is that by not hiring anyone who has or has had a drinking problem you will reduce accidents on the job.

For this to work you hae to have the ability to properly identify the alcoholics in the group.

If everyone knows that one loses their job if they admit to having a drinking problem, most logical employees will not treat their problem as it will lead to a loss of job.

Therefore the risk of injury actually rises, since there is no way to identify problem employees.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 577
Location: NYC
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 27 Apr 2007, 12:06
I am thinking D''

Double D's.
_________________

Success is my only option, failure is not -- Eminem

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 40
Followers: 0

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

[#permalink] New post 02 May 2007, 12:41
"bar" is not clear .. if it means banning from all jobs, B is the best answer, otherwise C.

What is the OA ?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 03 May 2007, 01:19
Seems like C.

B and D are equal in some sense. They both give an alternative source of accidents than alcoholic worker. So I would chose neither.
  [#permalink] 03 May 2007, 01:19
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
CR auto accident victims Tom Badgerlock 6 08 Feb 2008, 21:46
CR: industrial accidents imaru 7 10 Aug 2006, 08:58
Concerned at the increase in accident fatalities, Tennessee karlfurt 12 14 Mar 2006, 09:15
Whenever a major airplane accident occurs, there is a ywilfred 1 15 Oct 2005, 12:14
The nuclear accident at Chernobyl released clouds of gmataquaguy 3 06 Sep 2005, 04:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

CR-Industrial accidents

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.