Interesting question

Manufacturers R and S each have the same number of employees who work the same number of hours per week. According to records maintained by each manufacturer, the employees of Manufacturer R had more job-related accidents last month than did the employees of Manufacturer S. Therefore, employees of Manufacturer S are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Manufacturer R.
# Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?
1. The employees of Manufacturer R lost more time at work due to job-related accidents than did the employees of Manufacturer S.
2. Manufacturer S considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Manufacturer R.
3. The employees of Manufacturer R were sick more often than were the employees of Manufacturer S.
4. The majority of job-related accidents at Manufacturer R involved a single machine.
5. Several employees of Manufacturer R each had more than one job-related accident.

OA is correct. Option B directly attacks the counting technique used by manufacturer to arrive at the cited statistics.
Premise : the employees of Manufacturer R had more job-related accidents last month than did the employees of Manufacturer S

If the count was wrong - conclusion is jeopardized.
_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Yes that's a brilliant doubt. But if the data is garbled or overstated then any conclusion on that data is garbled, basically nothing can be inferred from the premise. And conclusion falls.
_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

With Financier's correction I d go with B otherwise I have my doubts!!

Only with final correction, I will go for B too
_________________

Regards,
Invincible...
"The way to succeed is to double your error rate."
"Most people who succeed in the face of seemingly impossible conditions are people who simply don't know how to quit."