|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Letter to the editor: After Baerton s factory closed, there [#permalink]
 13 Nov 2007, 09:37
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory’s former employees, Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:
(A) Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearings loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
(D) Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
(E) Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.
Please explain your answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 498
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
48
[0], given: 1
|
I think only B is irrevelant.
All others can weaken the argument.
A) weakens it.
C) weakens it (you might suffer from the injury days later after injury on the job)
D) weakens it (before they didn't apply because they cannot live with only the compensation, they have to keep working. Now that the factory is closing, they cannot keep working; therefore, they need to file for compensation.)
E) weakens it (workers worried about out of job and get depressed and prone to injury, they might injury themselves on the last day of job; therefore, claim the benefit after the factory is closed.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 308
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Job-related injury compensation [#permalink]
13 Nov 2007, 10:40
[quote="eyunni"]Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory’s former employees, Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:
(A) Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearings loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
Weakens
(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
This meas perople were getting injured but did not file for fear of loss
(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
Strenghthens
(D) Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
Weekens
(E) Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.
Weekensquote]
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1114
Location: London
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
56
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Job-related injury compensation [#permalink]
13 Nov 2007, 12:57
eyunni wrote: Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory’s former employees, Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:
(A) Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearings loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.-- since workers normally get compentation while on duty, there should not be any reason for further compensation other than being a benefit thief- this one strengthens
(D) Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
(E) Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.
Please explain your answers.
C for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
yes. OA is C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
