Companies O and P each have the same number of employees who work the

According to records maintained by each company, the employees of
Company O had fewer job-related accidents last year than did the employees of Company P

Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O.-> thus B

Imo B
We have to look for something that would justify in spite of having more accidents company P is good or there is something else that is counted in P than in O
So B gives a reason that the conclusion will be wrong because more no of incident are takes as accidents in P , so it does not necessarily means that employee of O will be less prone to safety .
Suppose some incident is considered an accident in company P , but that incident is not considered an accident in company O then we can have safety related problems in company O.

Hi ameyagmat1989,

I am happy to respond Though its an old post but still.

(D) Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident.
This option statement is talking about several employees who each had more than one job-related accident in Company O. But just on the basis of knowing these employees who each had more than one job-related accident, we cannot comment on the (overall) employees of Company O as a whole.

Though several employees had more than one job related accidents but there may be many who each had no job related accident at all. So, just on the basis of knowing these employees we cannot weaken our conclusion.

Choices D give reasons for predicting a smaller likelihood that any arbitrary employee of Company O will have a job-related accidents, and thus support the conclusion.

Also, in comparison questions, for example, as here in this question, we are comparing two companies P and O, it is more probable that those answer choices which includes both the counterparts in its explanation to be correct.

Hope it clears your doubt!

My 2 cents to the discussion....

#employees …P=O
#hours per week..…P=O
Job related accidents...last year….…O<P
=> employees of O are less likely to have job-related accidents than P

Argument type : Analogy

Weaken conclusion : will have to show less similarity between employees of O & P


(A) The employees of Company P lost more time at work due to job-related accidents than did the employees of Company O.

# time lost by P-E’s > O-E’s => P had more accidents than O; supports

(B) Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O.

# criteria was different, which jeopardises calculation authenticity; weakens conclusion.

(C) The employees of Company P were sick more often than were the employees of Company O.

# sickness is out of scope of argument, so no impact on conclusion

(D) Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident.

# Employees having multiple accidents doesn’t has any impact on conclusion. Target is to weaken overall accident.

(E) The majority of job-related accidents at Company O involved a single machine.

# argument focuses on job-related accidents, not machine specific..so out of scope..

why not option C?
Option C also weakens the argument.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.