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

It is currently 19 Apr 2014, 07:23

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

Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Current Student
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 514
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 29

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 264

Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2012, 03:54
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

77% (01:57) correct 22% (01:15) wrong based on 35 sessions
Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training to lead to safer work environments. A recent survey indicated, however, that for manufacturers who improved job safety training during the 1980s, the number of on-the-job accidents tended to increase in the months immediately following the changes in the training programs.Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the passage above?

(A) A similar survey found that the number of on the-job accidents remained constant after job safety training in the transportation sector was improved.
(B) Manufacturers tend to improve their job safety training only when they are increasing the size of their workforce.
(C) Manufacturers tend to improve job safety training only after they have noticed that the number of on-the-job accidents has increased.
(D) It is likely that the increase in the number of on-the-job accidents experienced by many companies was not merely a random fluctuation.
(E) Significant safety measures, such as protective equipment and government safety inspections, were in place well before the improvements in job safety training.
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 44
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 04-21-2013
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Internet and New Media)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 8

Re: Industry experts expect improvements [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2012, 07:43
I would go in for B because it clearly bring states that the no. of accidents has increased not beacuse of the training but because of the increase in the workforce...
_________________

KPV

Manager
Manager
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 4

Re: Industry experts expect improvements [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2012, 07:46
I think it should be B too as the increased workforce will lead to more accidents
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 36
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 12

Re: Industry experts expect improvements [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2012, 09:47
-- Out of all the options, B seems to be the best but i am not very convinced with B also.
Why would the number of accidents increase because of increasing workforce when the companies are imparting new safety techniques , if not to all,atleast to the new workforce - which should be helpful in decreasing the incidence of accidents ?
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 21 [2] , given: 4

Re: Industry experts expect improvements [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2012, 10:01
2
This post received
KUDOS
vmdce129907 wrote:
-- Out of all the options, B seems to be the best but i am not very convinced with B also.
Why would the number of accidents increase because of increasing workforce when the companies are imparting new safety techniques , if not to all,atleast to the new workforce - which should be helpful in decreasing the incidence of accidents ?


Thats a nice question. This is the beauty of this CR question, as you see in the question it mentions immediately

Quote:
the number of on-the-job accidents tended to increase in the months immediately following the changes in the training programs


and i think this ONE word justifies our answer i.e B. that the new training is being imparted but it will take a few months for people to learn the new safety skills, and meanwhile workforce has increased drastically, which is still untrained in safety procedures. Hence the increase in accidents.

Hope this helps.

Again, interesting point.
Current Student
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 514
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 29

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 264

Re: Industry experts expect improvements [#permalink] New post 30 Sep 2012, 23:52
adineo wrote:
and i think this ONE word justifies our answer i.e B. that the new training is being imparted but it will take a few months for people to learn the new safety skills, and meanwhile workforce has increased drastically, which is still untrained in safety procedures. Hence the increase in accidents.

Hope this helps.

Again, interesting point.


Hi Adineo and Vmdce129907

My 2 cents here

Let us say we get 2 accidents per month for every 10 employee
We have 100 employees, so total number of accidents is 20 per month.

Job safety training was introduced (which was supposed to decrease the rate to 1 accidents per 10 employee i.e total number of accidents to 10 per 100 employee per month)

Now in the coming months survey indicated that even though after incorporating such safety standards, number of accidents is more than 20. What could be the reason? If the number of employess increases, the number f accidents will increase. For Ex: After the training the number of accidents will be 30 per 300 employee per month.

In “resolve the paradox” type question we have to take the options as correct. Let us take option B.

(B) Manufacturers tend to improve their job safety training only when they are increasing the size of their workforce.

Manufacturers’ improved the training --------- Increase in Size of workforce to 300
Number of accidents per month 20 --------- Number of accidents per month 30

Any other thoughts? Do you think "immediately" signifies that the increase was only for the first few months or is it given to show the time gap difference between the implementation and the effect?

:-D
_________________

First Attempt 710 - first-attempt-141273.html

Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 36
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 12

Re: Industry experts expect improvements [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2012, 01:16
getgyan wrote:
adineo wrote:
and i think this ONE word justifies our answer i.e B. that the new training is being imparted but it will take a few months for people to learn the new safety skills, and meanwhile workforce has increased drastically, which is still untrained in safety procedures. Hence the increase in accidents.

Hope this helps.

Again, interesting point.


Hi Adineo and Vmdce129907

My 2 cents here

Let us say we get 2 accidents per month for every 10 employee
We have 100 employees, so total number of accidents is 20 per month.

Job safety training was introduced (which was supposed to decrease the rate to 1 accidents per 10 employee i.e total number of accidents to 10 per 100 employee per month)

Now in the coming months survey indicated that even though after incorporating such safety standards, number of accidents is more than 20. What could be the reason? If the number of employess increases, the number f accidents will increase. For Ex: After the training the number of accidents will be 30 per 300 employee per month.

In “resolve the paradox” type question we have to take the options as correct. Let us take option B.

(B) Manufacturers tend to improve their job safety training only when they are increasing the size of their workforce.

Manufacturers’ improved the training --------- Increase in Size of workforce to 300
Number of accidents per month 20 --------- Number of accidents per month 30

Any other thoughts? Do you think "immediately" signifies that the increase was only for the first few months or is it given to show the time gap difference between the implementation and the effect?

:-D



Nice explanation, however - The fact that No of on job accidents increased immediately after the training makes us assume 2 points.

1) As mentioned by getgyan - Rate of accidents (ie no of accidents / no of employees) has reduced [Assumption - The training program was a success, the point here is that no of accidents can increase even if the rate of accidents stays the same as it was earlier - 2/10 employees , employees 200 - accidents- 20; employees 300 - accidents 30 ]but the workforce has increased (option b).
Also it is clearly mentioned in the argument that accidents increased immediately after the training. If we take a bigger time gap (not immediately), it can be safely assumed that the rate of decrease will be much higher leading to lesser number of on job accidents ( For instance - 2/10 employees before the training, 1/200 after the training so if no of employees increases from 100 to 200, the number of accidents will decrease from 20 to 1 considering the success of the training program)
Not let us go to what Adineo explains.

2) As mentioned by Adineo - that the new training is being imparted but it will take a few months for people to learn the new safety skills, and meanwhile workforce has increased drastically, which is still untrained in safety procedures. Hence the increase in accidents.
Yes, this is correct. This assumption is much safer that the people will learn the new safety skills effectively ,may be in couple of months after the training is imparted. So they are still not 100% trained which leads to increase in accidents.


Press +1 Kudos if you like my explanation
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 1696
Followers: 388

Kudos [?]: 1535 [1] , given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2012, 12:18
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
getgyan wrote:
Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training to lead to safer work environments. A recent survey indicated, however, that for manufacturers who improved job safety training during the 1980s, the number of on-the-job accidents tended to increase in the months immediately following the changes in the training programs.Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the passage above?
(A) A similar survey found that the number of on the-job accidents remained constant after job safety training in the transportation sector was improved.
(B) Manufacturers tend to improve their job safety training only when they are increasing the size of their workforce.
(C) Manufacturers tend to improve job safety training only after they have noticed that the number of on-the-job accidents has increased.
(D) It is likely that the increase in the number of on-the-job accidents experienced by many companies was not merely a random fluctuation.
(E) Significant safety measures, such as protective equipment and government safety inspections, were in place well before the improvements in job safety training.

I am responding to getygan's p.m., but it seems that everyone on this page agrees that (B) is the best answer. I agree as well.

I will just add: I have seen this before in CR, I think even in the OG ---- the number vs. percent paradox. Percent of Q goes down, but total number of Q goes up, only because the population increases. (Other combinations of increase/decrease are also possible.) GMAC really likes this paradox. I agree with getygan's numerical analysis.

getgyan wrote:
Do you think "immediately" signifies that the increase was only for the first few months or is it given to show the time gap difference between the implementation and the effect?

I think the word "immediately" signifies that we are talking about the months directly after implementation --- if the safety training is given, say, the first week in March, then March - June, say, are the months we are discussing. I don't know that we can jump to the conclusion that the effect is "only" in those months --- we just are given no information about how things played out long term.

I also like Adineo's idea that it took some time for the new training to reach every new employee, especially after a sharp increase in the number of employees. Not all bureaucracies operate with lightning-fast efficiency --- an eminently reasonable assumption!!

Good work, folks. I think we nailed this one. Please let me know if anyone reading this has any further questions.

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 349
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 12

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2012, 16:09
Nice work guys, i picked C but on reading the argument closely it says that accidents kept on increasing. So B wins.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

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

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2012, 01:27
Job safety trainings are imperative for those people who work in heavy industries, factories where there are too many chances of accidents over there.Those who have gone through this kind of training are pretty much aware of the incidents and the risk involved in it and know how to avoid the same.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 8

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2012, 02:28
IMO, the discrepancy is not satisfactorily resolved by choice B. When training is given for improvement in safety, let us assume that at least the no of accidents among existing workforce will reduce because the rationale of B is that the new workforce adds to the increase in the accidents. Now the reduction in the number of accidents among the old workforce is pitted against the more number of accidents among the new workforce. We cannot really decide which is higher. Yes the new workforce may contribute to more accidents but the absolute number of accidents of the total workforce, need not increase. So the paradox is not conclusively resolved as the argument is not logically airtight. If that is not the case you can argue creatively to make any choice true.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 1696
Followers: 388

Kudos [?]: 1535 [0], given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2012, 11:07
Expert's post
sravna67 wrote:
IMO, the discrepancy is not satisfactorily resolved by choice B. When training is given for improvement in safety, let us assume that at least the no of accidents among existing workforce will reduce because the rationale of B is that the new workforce adds to the increase in the accidents. Now the reduction in the number of accidents among the old workforce is pitted against the more number of accidents among the new workforce. We cannot really decide which is higher. Yes the new workforce may contribute to more accidents but the absolute number of accidents of the total workforce, need not increase. So the paradox is not conclusively resolved as the argument is not logically airtight. If that is not the case you can argue creatively to make any choice true.

Dear Sravna67

You make an excellent argument. I will point out to you what I consider a crucial distinction. On GMAT CR, the correct answer is not necessarily an absolute air-tight, totally logical, 100% guaranteed-to-be-irrefutable argument; rather, it is merely the best, the most plausible, the most believable of the five choices. Critical Reasoning is not mathematics. You cannot expect the perfect & unambiguous truth here that we routinely expect in math. Part of CR is about negotiating shades of grey, and choosing the shade of grey that is closest to white, if that makes any sense.

Beware of this kind of thinking --- if one is not airtight and guaranteed-by-God correct, then any of the five are just as good. As you said, "you can argue creatively to make any choice true." That is directly antithetical to the mindset you need for Critical Reasoning. GMAT CR is about about weighing different options, often in conditions of less than complete certainty, and finding which of the five is best. If you are in the mindset that anything could be true if you argued creatively enough, you may miss the subtle indications that allow us to select one answer over the other four. You are asked to negotiate the best option in conditions far less than certainty --- this is actually the exact skill you will need when you are done with your MBA and making real decisions as a manager in the business world.

You are 100% correct --- here, choice (B) is not an airtight irrefutable argument: it is not a "mathematically correct" choice. That, though, is not the question. The question is, "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the passage above?" I assert that (B), in providing a plausible possible scenario, helps considerably more than any of the other four.

What do you think? Does this make sense?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 8

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2012, 17:15
mikemcgarry wrote:
sravna67 wrote:
IMO, the discrepancy is not satisfactorily resolved by choice B. When training is given for improvement in safety, let us assume that at least the no of accidents among existing workforce will reduce because the rationale of B is that the new workforce adds to the increase in the accidents. Now the reduction in the number of accidents among the old workforce is pitted against the more number of accidents among the new workforce. We cannot really decide which is higher. Yes the new workforce may contribute to more accidents but the absolute number of accidents of the total workforce, need not increase. So the paradox is not conclusively resolved as the argument is not logically airtight. If that is not the case you can argue creatively to make any choice true.

Dear Sravna67

You make an excellent argument. I will point out to you what I consider a crucial distinction. On GMAT CR, the correct answer is not necessarily an absolute air-tight, totally logical, 100% guaranteed-to-be-irrefutable argument; rather, it is merely the best, the most plausible, the most believable of the five choices. Critical Reasoning is not mathematics. You cannot expect the perfect & unambiguous truth here that we routinely expect in math. Part of CR is about negotiating shades of grey, and choosing the shade of grey that is closest to white, if that makes any sense.

Beware of this kind of thinking --- if one is not airtight and guaranteed-by-God correct, then any of the five are just as good. As you said, "you can argue creatively to make any choice true." That is directly antithetical to the mindset you need for Critical Reasoning. GMAT CR is about about weighing different options, often in conditions of less than complete certainty, and finding which of the five is best. If you are in the mindset that anything could be true if you argued creatively enough, you may miss the subtle indications that allow us to select one answer over the other four. You are asked to negotiate the best option in conditions far less than certainty --- this is actually the exact skill you will need when you are done with your MBA and making real decisions as a manager in the business world.

You are 100% correct --- here, choice (B) is not an airtight irrefutable argument: it is not a "mathematically correct" choice. That, though, is not the question. The question is, "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the passage above?" I assert that (B), in providing a plausible possible scenario, helps considerably more than any of the other four.

What do you think? Does this make sense?

Mike :-)


Dear Mike,

Yes you are right in the sense that you cannot always make a reasoning that is absolutely airtight just as in mathematics and it is also not necessary to do that in the GMAT CR. But we have something called as common sense knowledge which attests to the correctness of our argument. For example when we say that scientists developed a new product we assume that they are for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and to assume anything to the contrary unless explicitly mentioned so, is not correct. But we cannot do the same for knowledge that is not common sense.

In our problem, it is equally plausible that the number of accidents after training either increased or decreased. So how can we choose the former and say that the paradox has been resolved?

Now consider choice E. It says that significant safety measures were already in place. This means that the safety measures were already good. So could also mean that any changes in safety measures may increase the accidents initially.

My point is that the choices should not be selected based on fine distinctions in an exam that has severe time constraints. You will only fill the minds of the test taker with full of doubts while answering the questions.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 1696
Followers: 388

Kudos [?]: 1535 [0], given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2012, 19:18
Expert's post
sravna67 wrote:
Dear Mike,
Yes you are right in the sense that you cannot always make a reasoning that is absolutely airtight just as in mathematics and it is also not necessary to do that in the GMAT CR. But we have something called as common sense knowledge which attests to the correctness of our argument. For example when we say that scientists developed a new product we assume that they are for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and to assume anything to the contrary unless explicitly mentioned so, is not correct. But we cannot do the same for knowledge that is not common sense.

This is only incidental to your main argument, but I think it is totally invalid to assume everything scientists do will accrue to the benefit and enjoyment of humanity at large. Many scientist are motivated money, awards, prestige, etc., and these interests may or may not coincide with the common good.
It is true that we have to bring some common sense life experience to the CR, but be careful when you are on grounds of common sense --- that's a very likely place to fall prey to unacknowledged assumptions. In fact, "unacknowledged assumptions" is probably the best technical definition for what most people mean by "common sense."

sravna67 wrote:
In our problem, it is equally plausible that the number of accidents after training either increased or decreased. So how can we choose the former and say that the paradox has been resolved?

No, it is NOT equally plausible. We are told, as part of the factual evidence: accidents increased.
Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training to lead to safer work environments. A recent survey indicated, however, that for manufacturers who improved job safety training during the 1980s, the number of on-the-job accidents tended to increase in the months immediately following the changes in the training programs.
Overall, there was an increase in most places. That is not up for debate. Our job is to explain that increase, but whether that increase happened is not debatable in the least. I believe you are mis-framing the question. It is always 100% invalid on GMAT CR to question the evidence itself. That always will lead you astray.
The question is --- given that accidents increased in most place, contrary to what you would expect, given that we can't debate or change that, what answer best explains it? I still argue that (B), playing on the percent vs. absolute numbers confusion, is the best explanation for this increase.

sravna67 wrote:
Now consider choice E. It says that significant safety measures were already in place. This means that the safety measures were already good. So could also mean that any changes in safety measures may increase the accidents initially.

Given that accidents did increase, and that we want to explain this --- finding out that significant safety measure were already in place doesn't help us at all. That would lead to expect that accidents would not increase, which is the opposite of the thing which happened that we have to explain.

sravna67 wrote:
My point is that the choices should not be selected based on fine distinctions in an exam that has severe time constraints. You will only fill the minds of the test taker with full of doubts while answering the questions.

I must say, I am not exactly sure what your point is here. Folks who want to succeed on the GMAT CR do need to think with precision --- precision about what is asked, precision about what they know and don't know, precision about what they can and can't assume. It's not at all clear to me which "fine distinctions" you find irrelevant.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 8

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2012, 19:42
mikemcgarry wrote:
sravna67 wrote:
Dear Mike,
Yes you are right in the sense that you cannot always make a reasoning that is absolutely airtight just as in mathematics and it is also not necessary to do that in the GMAT CR. But we have something called as common sense knowledge which attests to the correctness of our argument. For example when we say that scientists developed a new product we assume that they are for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and to assume anything to the contrary unless explicitly mentioned so, is not correct. But we cannot do the same for knowledge that is not common sense.

This is only incidental to your main argument, but I think it is totally invalid to assume everything scientists do will accrue to the benefit and enjoyment of humanity at large. Many scientist are motivated money, awards, prestige, etc., and these interests may or may not coincide with the common good.
It is true that we have to bring some common sense life experience to the CR, but be careful when you are on grounds of common sense --- that's a very likely place to fall prey to unacknowledged assumptions. In fact, "unacknowledged assumptions" is probably the best technical definition for what most people mean by "common sense."

sravna67 wrote:
In our problem, it is equally plausible that the number of accidents after training either increased or decreased. So how can we choose the former and say that the paradox has been resolved?

No, it is NOT equally plausible. We are told, as part of the factual evidence: accidents increased.
Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training to lead to safer work environments. A recent survey indicated, however, that for manufacturers who improved job safety training during the 1980s, the number of on-the-job accidents tended to increase in the months immediately following the changes in the training programs.
Overall, there was an increase in most places. That is not up for debate. Our job is to explain that increase, but whether that increase happened is not debatable in the least. I believe you are mis-framing the question. It is always 100% invalid on GMAT CR to question the evidence itself. That always will lead you astray.
The question is --- given that accidents increased in most place, contrary to what you would expect, given that we can't debate or change that, what answer best explains it? I still argue that (B), playing on the percent vs. absolute numbers confusion, is the best explanation for this increase.

sravna67 wrote:
Now consider choice E. It says that significant safety measures were already in place. This means that the safety measures were already good. So could also mean that any changes in safety measures may increase the accidents initially.

Given that accidents did increase, and that we want to explain this --- finding out that significant safety measure were already in place doesn't help us at all. That would lead to expect that accidents would not increase, which is the opposite of the thing which happened that we have to explain.

sravna67 wrote:
My point is that the choices should not be selected based on fine distinctions in an exam that has severe time constraints. You will only fill the minds of the test taker with full of doubts while answering the questions.

I must say, I am not exactly sure what your point is here. Folks who want to succeed on the GMAT CR do need to think with precision --- precision about what is asked, precision about what they know and don't know, precision about what they can and can't assume. It's not at all clear to me which "fine distinctions" you find irrelevant.

Does all this make sense?
Mike


Dear Mike,

That the number of accidents increased is a fact. What I am saying is that the explanation that it is because of the increase in the number of employees is the only plausible one, may not be true. It may also be that the quality of the safety measures has actually deteriorated. That's what Choice E suggests . You are disrupting something that was working and replacing it with something that may have been worse and hence the increase in the number of accidents.

Thus to sum up, the increase could be due to(i) increase in number of workforce (ii) decrease in quality of training program.

For the first we have to assume that the training program was indeed an improvement and hence may neutralize the increase in number. For the second we cannot do that.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 1696
Followers: 388

Kudos [?]: 1535 [0], given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2012, 20:51
Expert's post
sravna67 wrote:
Dear Mike,
That the number of accidents increased is a fact. What I am saying is that the explanation that it is because of the increase in the number of employees is the only plausible one, may not be true. It may also be that the quality of the safety measures has actually deteriorated.

No. We are discussing "manufacturers who improved job safety training during the 1980s." Thus, we know for a fact that, during this process, the process in which the accidents increased, training definitely got better. We don't know the details of how it got better, how much it improved, etc., but we definitely know the quality went up. Again, you can't question the evidence in the argument.

sravna67 wrote:
That's what Choice E suggests . You are disrupting something that was working and replacing it with something that may have been worse and hence the increase in the number of accidents.

Again, no. You are not reading carefully. This is a distractor answer. The prompt is about safety training (actual classes they give to employees). Answer (E), by contrast, is about "safety measures, such as protective equipment and government safety inspections": these are other things going on "in the background", as it were, designed to protect workers but not necessarily part of a worker's awareness/knowledge/training. Some of those measures, like the government safety inspections, aren't even in the control of the corporation: those are run by OSHA or some other Federal agency, and those will continue regardless of what the corporation does with training. The corporation doesn't get to choose what the government does or doesn't do. Also, with equipment --- if they have protective equipment, they will in all likelihood keep it: equipment of any sort is expensive to replace, so it's insane to think they would get rid of this and replace it with unsafe equipment just because they are instituting safety training. There is absolutely no reason to think that these measures would be "replaced" by safety training --- they are two very different things. Furthermore, we are told those measures were "in place", which suggests establishment and stability. These measures preceded the period of safety training, and the phrase "in place" suggests, as we would suspect, that the measures continued, more or less unchanged, during that entire process. These measures were ongoing in the background, so they in no way account for an increase in accidents. Answer (E) is a trap for readers who do not read carefully --- incorrect answers like this are quite typical of the GMAT CR. I'm sorry to say: they set a trap, and you fell for it.

I cannot underscore enough the important of reading extremely carefully on GMAT CR --- every word is used with precision, and phrases are cleverly crafted to elicit one interpretation if you scan them briefly, but a very different interpretation if you actually slow down and take into consideration the weight of every part of the sentence.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 8

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2012, 21:43
mikemcgarry wrote:
sravna67 wrote:
Dear Mike,
That the number of accidents increased is a fact. What I am saying is that the explanation that it is because of the increase in the number of employees is the only plausible one, may not be true. It may also be that the quality of the safety measures has actually deteriorated.

No. We are discussing "manufacturers who improved job safety training during the 1980s." Thus, we know for a fact that, during this process, the process in which the accidents increased, training definitely got better. We don't know the details of how it got better, how much it improved, etc., but we definitely know the quality went up. Again, you can't question the evidence in the argument.

sravna67 wrote:
That's what Choice E suggests . You are disrupting something that was working and replacing it with something that may have been worse and hence the increase in the number of accidents.

Again, no. You are not reading carefully. This is a distractor answer. The prompt is about safety training (actual classes they give to employees). Answer (E), by contrast, is about "safety measures, such as protective equipment and government safety inspections": these are other things going on "in the background", as it were, designed to protect workers but not necessarily part of a worker's awareness/knowledge/training. Some of those measures, like the government safety inspections, aren't even in the control of the corporation: those are run by OSHA or some other Federal agency, and those will continue regardless of what the corporation does with training. The corporation doesn't get to choose what the government does or doesn't do. Also, with equipment --- if they have protective equipment, they will in all likelihood keep it: equipment of any sort is expensive to replace, so it's insane to think they would get rid of this and replace it with unsafe equipment just because they are instituting safety training. There is absolutely no reason to think that these measures would be "replaced" by safety training --- they are two very different things. Furthermore, we are told those measures were "in place", which suggests establishment and stability. These measures preceded the period of safety training, and the phrase "in place" suggests, as we would suspect, that the measures continued, more or less unchanged, during that entire process. These measures were ongoing in the background, so they in no way account for an increase in accidents. Answer (E) is a trap for readers who do not read carefully --- incorrect answers like this are quite typical of the GMAT CR. I'm sorry to say: they set a trap, and you fell for it.

I cannot underscore enough the important of reading extremely carefully on GMAT CR --- every word is used with precision, and phrases are cleverly crafted to elicit one interpretation if you scan them briefly, but a very different interpretation if you actually slow down and take into consideration the weight of every part of the sentence.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


Dear Mike,

As I said there are only two ways that the number could have gone up, by increase in the size of workforce and by actual decrease in quality or effectiveness of the training program.

What goes for size:

the greater the size of workforce , the more likely number of accidents

What goes against size?

when the quality improves, it tends to offset the increase in number of accidents due to increase in size

That the observation is given as a discrepancy suggests that immediate increase in effectiveness is supposed to happen. If that is the case what goes in support of size is largely neutralized because of decrease in accidents due to increase in the standard of the program.

Now, what goes for decrease in safety standards?

Since it is said the number of accidents actually increase and the quality actually improved, workers might have found it difficult to adapt to it in the initial stage and the effectiveness of the program might have suffered initially though in the long run the benefits are there. This actually has nothing to do with the size of the workforce. The time period we are concerned with is only the short duration mentioned in the passage. Choice E suggests that good safety measures were well in place. Anything might have been the cause because of the new practices though temporary in decreasing the safety of the workers. This is because of the observation that the accidents increased and the less likelihood of it being due to number as seen above. You need a lot of solid assumptions to conclude otherwise.

Now what goes against decrease in safety standards?

That the quality actually improved. But it could have taken time for the effect to take place and in the period mentioned in the passage the actual effectiveness might have decreased.

Also note that only a particular time frame is given which is the 1980's and the prevailing standards might have been responsible for what was observed.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 1696
Followers: 388

Kudos [?]: 1535 [0], given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 19 Dec 2012, 21:03
Expert's post
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
As I said there are only two ways that the number could have gone up, by increase in the size of workforce and by actual decrease in quality or effectiveness of the training program.

What goes for size:
the greater the size of workforce , the more likely number of accidents

What goes against size?
when the quality improves, it tends to offset the increase in number of accidents due to increase in size

That the observation is given as a discrepancy suggests that immediate increase in effectiveness is supposed to happen. If that is the case what goes in support of size is largely neutralized because of decrease in accidents due to increase in the standard of the program.

I agree with what you say under the "for size" section. What you say under the "against size" section is entirely unjustified. If they increased the number of workers by, say, 10%, and the accident rate went from 7% down to 1%, then indeed, the improvement in quality would offset the change in size. BUT, if the number of workers increased by 100%, and the accident rate went down from 4% to 3%, then the increase in quality would not offset the change in size. We have no data about any of these magnitudes, so we cannot make assumptions, and we certainly can't rule things out conclusively, as you have done.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Now, what goes for decrease in safety standards?
Since it is said the number of accidents actually increase and the quality actually improved, workers might have found it difficult to adapt to it in the initial stage and the effectiveness of the program might have suffered initially though in the long run the benefits are there. This actually has nothing to do with the size of the workforce. The time period we are concerned with is only the short duration mentioned in the passage. Choice E suggests that good safety measures were well in place. Anything might have been the cause because of the new practices though temporary in decreasing the safety of the workers. This is because of the observation that the accidents increased and the less likelihood of it being due to number as seen above. You need a lot of solid assumptions to conclude otherwise.

Now what goes against decrease in safety standards?
That the quality actually improved. But it could have taken time for the effect to take place and in the period mentioned in the passage the actual effectiveness might have decreased.

First, I will point out you are using extremely imprecise terminology -- all the words in red you are using more or less interchangeably, and in no place do you acknowledge what the passage was talking primarily about the safety training. You are very much spinning your own arguments and not staying close to the text of the passage itself. GMAT CR is all about following, as precisely as possible, what is and isn't stated in that passage.
We know the quality of the safety training increased.
We know, in (E), the safety measures were in place and continued in place.
We know absolutely nothing about "new practices" --- that is your own term, supported nowhere in the passage.
We know absolutely nothing about "safety standards" --- that is your own term, supported nowhere in the passage.
We know, in many of these companies, number of accidents increased.
The "quality" about which you appear to be talking is, I suppose, quality of the safety practices of the workforce. Notice, the passage tells us nothing directly about this. We know the quality of the safety training got better. We know, in (E), the quality of the external safety measures remained about the same. We know nothing about the quality of the safety practices of the workers.
Answer (B), about hiring new workers ---- this is a credible answer both because of the numbers/percent issue, discussed above, and as you say, new workers coming in, even with good training, might have an adjustment period during which the accident rate is higher. For both of these interpretations (B) is the best answer.
Choice (E) is not relevant to any of this, and not viable in the least as an answer. As I explained in the post above, (E) is all about "n the background" stuff that is not directly related to what workers know and how they behave. Your observation that "Anything might have been the cause ..." is hardly a ringing endorsement of choice (E) specifically.
It's true --- choices (A) & (C) & (D) & (E) leave us with no good explanation of the discrepancy. Only (B) hints at scenarios which would resolve it, which is why it alone is the best answer.
You are not reading carefully, you are introducing your own terms & ideas not supported by the passage, and quite frankly, the level of grammar in your writing is far below the standards of GMAT Sentence Correction questions. You have invested much more time & energy into this question than it requires, and you are still arguing for a choice that is clearly not viable. I would strongly recommend significant practice with the Critical Reasoning questions, learning strategies and deepening your understanding of what this question format is about. The GMAT CR is a challenging question type in many ways, and it requires time and effort and practice to master these questions.
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 128 [1] , given: 8

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 19 Dec 2012, 21:10
1
This post received
KUDOS
mikemcgarry wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
As I said there are only two ways that the number could have gone up, by increase in the size of workforce and by actual decrease in quality or effectiveness of the training program.

What goes for size:
the greater the size of workforce , the more likely number of accidents

What goes against size?
when the quality improves, it tends to offset the increase in number of accidents due to increase in size

That the observation is given as a discrepancy suggests that immediate increase in effectiveness is supposed to happen. If that is the case what goes in support of size is largely neutralized because of decrease in accidents due to increase in the standard of the program.

I agree with what you say under the "for size" section. What you say under the "against size" section is entirely unjustified. If they increased the number of workers by, say, 10%, and the accident rate went from 7% down to 1%, then indeed, the improvement in quality would offset the change in size. BUT, if the number of workers increased by 100%, and the accident rate went down from 4% to 3%, then the increase in quality would not offset the change in size. We have no data about any of these magnitudes, so we cannot make assumptions, and we certainly can't rule things out conclusively, as you have done.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Now, what goes for decrease in safety standards?
Since it is said the number of accidents actually increase and the quality actually improved, workers might have found it difficult to adapt to it in the initial stage and the effectiveness of the program might have suffered initially though in the long run the benefits are there. This actually has nothing to do with the size of the workforce. The time period we are concerned with is only the short duration mentioned in the passage. Choice E suggests that good safety measures were well in place. Anything might have been the cause because of the new practices though temporary in decreasing the safety of the workers. This is because of the observation that the accidents increased and the less likelihood of it being due to number as seen above. You need a lot of solid assumptions to conclude otherwise.

Now what goes against decrease in safety standards?
That the quality actually improved. But it could have taken time for the effect to take place and in the period mentioned in the passage the actual effectiveness might have decreased.

First, I will point out you are using extremely imprecise terminology -- all the words in red you are using more or less interchangeably, and in no place do you acknowledge what the passage was talking primarily about the safety training. You are very much spinning your own arguments and not staying close to the text of the passage itself. GMAT CR is all about following, as precisely as possible, what is and isn't stated in that passage.
We know the quality of the safety training increased.
We know, in (E), the safety measures were in place and continued in place.
We know absolutely nothing about "new practices" --- that is your own term, supported nowhere in the passage.
We know absolutely nothing about "safety standards" --- that is your own term, supported nowhere in the passage.
We know, in many of these companies, number of accidents increased.
The "quality" about which you appear to be talking is, I suppose, quality of the safety practices of the workforce. Notice, the passage tells us nothing directly about this. We know the quality of the safety training got better. We know, in (E), the quality of the external safety measures remained about the same. We know nothing about the quality of the safety practices of the workers.
Answer (B), about hiring new workers ---- this is a credible answer both because of the numbers/percent issue, discussed above, and as you say, new workers coming in, even with good training, might have an adjustment period during which the accident rate is higher. For both of these interpretations (B) is the best answer.
Choice (E) is not relevant to any of this, and not viable in the least as an answer. As I explained in the post above, (E) is all about "n the background" stuff that is not directly related to what workers know and how they behave. Your observation that "Anything might have been the cause ..." is hardly a ringing endorsement of choice (E) specifically.
It's true --- choices (A) & (C) & (D) & (E) leave us with no good explanation of the discrepancy. Only (B) hints at scenarios which would resolve it, which is why it alone is the best answer.
You are not reading carefully, you are introducing your own terms & ideas not supported by the passage, and quite frankly, the level of grammar in your writing is far below the standards of GMAT Sentence Correction questions. You have invested much more time & energy into this question than it requires, and you are still arguing for a choice that is clearly not viable. I would strongly recommend significant practice with the Critical Reasoning questions, learning strategies and deepening your understanding of what this question format is about. The GMAT CR is a challenging question type in many ways, and it requires time and effort and practice to master these questions.
Mike :-)


Dear Mike,

I do not understand why you want to get so defensive by attacking my level of grammar and my understanding of the CR question. I think there is no point in arguing with you when you are desperate to end the argument
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 359
Location: India
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 8

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training [#permalink] New post 19 Dec 2012, 23:23
mikemcgarry wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
As I said there are only two ways that the number could have gone up, by increase in the size of workforce and by actual decrease in quality or effectiveness of the training program.

What goes for size:
the greater the size of workforce , the more likely number of accidents

What goes against size?
when the quality improves, it tends to offset the increase in number of accidents due to increase in size

That the observation is given as a discrepancy suggests that immediate increase in effectiveness is supposed to happen. If that is the case what goes in support of size is largely neutralized because of decrease in accidents due to increase in the standard of the program.

I agree with what you say under the "for size" section. What you say under the "against size" section is entirely unjustified. If they increased the number of workers by, say, 10%, and the accident rate went from 7% down to 1%, then indeed, the improvement in quality would offset the change in size. BUT, if the number of workers increased by 100%, and the accident rate went down from 4% to 3%, then the increase in quality would not offset the change in size. We have no data about any of these magnitudes, so we cannot make assumptions, and we certainly can't rule things out conclusively, as you have done.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Now, what goes for decrease in safety standards?
Since it is said the number of accidents actually increase and the quality actually improved, workers might have found it difficult to adapt to it in the initial stage and the effectiveness of the program might have suffered initially though in the long run the benefits are there. This actually has nothing to do with the size of the workforce. The time period we are concerned with is only the short duration mentioned in the passage. Choice E suggests that good safety measures were well in place. Anything might have been the cause because of the new practices though temporary in decreasing the safety of the workers. This is because of the observation that the accidents increased and the less likelihood of it being due to number as seen above. You need a lot of solid assumptions to conclude otherwise.

Now what goes against decrease in safety standards?
That the quality actually improved. But it could have taken time for the effect to take place and in the period mentioned in the passage the actual effectiveness might have decreased.

First, I will point out you are using extremely imprecise terminology -- all the words in red you are using more or less interchangeably, and in no place do you acknowledge what the passage was talking primarily about the safety training. You are very much spinning your own arguments and not staying close to the text of the passage itself. GMAT CR is all about following, as precisely as possible, what is and isn't stated in that passage.
We know the quality of the safety training increased.
We know, in (E), the safety measures were in place and continued in place.
We know absolutely nothing about "new practices" --- that is your own term, supported nowhere in the passage.
We know absolutely nothing about "safety standards" --- that is your own term, supported nowhere in the passage.
We know, in many of these companies, number of accidents increased.
The "quality" about which you appear to be talking is, I suppose, quality of the safety practices of the workforce. Notice, the passage tells us nothing directly about this. We know the quality of the safety training got better. We know, in (E), the quality of the external safety measures remained about the same. We know nothing about the quality of the safety practices of the workers.
Answer (B), about hiring new workers ---- this is a credible answer both because of the numbers/percent issue, discussed above, and as you say, new workers coming in, even with good training, might have an adjustment period during which the accident rate is higher. For both of these interpretations (B) is the best answer.
Choice (E) is not relevant to any of this, and not viable in the least as an answer. As I explained in the post above, (E) is all about "n the background" stuff that is not directly related to what workers know and how they behave. Your observation that "Anything might have been the cause ..." is hardly a ringing endorsement of choice (E) specifically.
It's true --- choices (A) & (C) & (D) & (E) leave us with no good explanation of the discrepancy. Only (B) hints at scenarios which would resolve it, which is why it alone is the best answer.
You are not reading carefully, you are introducing your own terms & ideas not supported by the passage, and quite frankly, the level of grammar in your writing is far below the standards of GMAT Sentence Correction questions. You have invested much more time & energy into this question than it requires, and you are still arguing for a choice that is clearly not viable. I would strongly recommend significant practice with the Critical Reasoning questions, learning strategies and deepening your understanding of what this question format is about. The GMAT CR is a challenging question type in many ways, and it requires time and effort and practice to master these questions.
Mike :-)


Dear Mike,

I just need to place my argument for the benefit of the readers.

You need to spend more time understanding the gist of the argument before you harp on the details. I might not have been consistent in the use of terminology but I never thought that would have hindered the understanding of the argument.

My point was that we cannot come to the conclusion that the increase in the size of the workforce resulted in the increase in the number of accidents. I am glad you admit that. Answer me this simple point. If it is something that could have been either way, remember that there was no mention that the workforce increased sharply such as 100% or so, how is it better than randomly selecting one of the two possibilities? That is I can toss a coin and if a heads comes up say that the increase in the size of the workforce increased the number of accidents.

Is that how we are supposed to answer such questions?
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
sravna@gmail.com

Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com
Online courses and 1-on-1 Online Tutoring for the GMAT and the GRE

Re: Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training   [#permalink] 19 Dec 2012, 23:23
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts Traffic safety experts predict that the installation of ywilfred 8 15 Oct 2005, 12:15
New posts Traffic safety experts predict that the installation of dwivedys 8 10 Aug 2006, 11:47
New posts Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training pmenon 7 20 Oct 2007, 04:27
New posts Industry expert expect improvements ykaiim 3 15 Apr 2010, 06:14
New posts 2 Job safety improvements gtr022001 6 02 Mar 2011, 23:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 32 posts ] 



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®.