A recent study has found that, surprisingly, the risk of serious

Question

A recent study has found that, surprisingly, the risk of serious injuries to workers is higher in industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors than in industries that are not so monitored.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising finding described above?

(A) Government safety inspectors not only monitor but also train employees of the inspected firms to follow safe practices.
(B) Government safety inspectors do not have the authority to enforce safety regulations.
(C) Only those industries with an inherently high risk of on-the-job injury are monitored by government safety inspectors.
(D) Workers behave especially cautiously when they believe their performance is being monitored by government safety inspectors.
(E) Some of the industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors have much lower rates of injuries than do other industries that are also so monitored.

unraveled · Answer

A recent study has found that, surprisingly, the risk of serious injuries to workers is higher in industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors than in industries that are not so monitored.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising finding described above?

(A) Government safety inspectors not only monitor but also train employees of the inspected firms to follow safe practices. - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(B) Government safety inspectors do not have the authority to enforce safety regulations. - WRONG. Possible but we have a better answer in C.
(C) Only those industries with an inherently high risk of on-the-job injury are monitored by government safety inspectors. - CORRECT. Sampling issue here. If two entities are not comparable than findings would be surprising.
(D) Workers  behave especially cautiously  when they believe their performance is being monitored by government safety inspectors. - WRONG. Get more complex from here. Not helpful.
(E)  Some of the industries  that are monitored by government safety inspectors have much lower rates of injuries than do other industries that are also so monitored - WRONG. Problem with 'some' and a comparison both of which do not help.

Answer C.

Ps1810 · Answer

I will give it a shot
So, the surprising finding is that even though few industries are monitored, risk of serious injuries is higher in Monitored industries than in Unmonitored(if that is a word:).
A - Is Irrelevant as this is not helping is anyway to resolve anything.
B - We are not focussing on enforcing but on monitoring. So, goes out of the window.
 C - This explains that the ones that are monitored are already high in risk of Injuries so doesn't help much even if you monitor, those industries are inherently riskier.
 D- Completely irrelevant. how they behave.
E- This is a slight weakner but we don't need this, we need explanation.

Let me know if there is anything that I missed!
Thanks in Advance!

A_Nishith · Answer

(A) Government safety inspectors not only monitor but also train employees of the inspected firms to follow safe practices. - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(B) Government safety inspectors do not have the authority to enforce safety regulations. - WRONG. Possible but we have a better answer in C.
(C) Only those industries with an inherently high risk of on-the-job injury are monitored by government safety inspectors. - CORRECT. Sampling issue here. If two entities are not comparable than findings would be surprising.
(D) Workers behave especially cautiously when they believe their performance is being monitored by government safety inspectors. - WRONG. Get more complex from here. Not helpful.
(E) Some of the industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors have much lower rates of injuries than do other industries that are also so monitored - WRONG. Problem with 'some' and a comparison both of which do not help.

Answer: C
___________

Prakruti_Patil · Answer

The questions lays out the situation that industries monitored by government inspectors is seeing higher risk of serious injuries. This is contrary to general belief or patterns where inspection would ideally lead to lesser risk of injuries, and yet in this situation the site continues to have higher risk.

Which indicates something about the site itself or the pool selected for inspection. Going to the answer choices:

A) if they monitor + train, risk should reduce, so this does not explain the discrepancy here

B) even if they don't have the authority, and simply highlight the issues, it could be someone else's responsibility to enforce regulations; and that should still lead to reduction in risk

C) Yes! 
because the pool selected is inherently high risk prone, even if changes occur, it will be in the higher percentile of risk and therefore, it seems as if inspection is not being impactful -- but it is, because they are beckoned to solve crisis.

D) This is not relevant, because the discrepancy does not focus on employee behaviour, it points out inherent risk at site

E) 'some' does not indicate how many and doesn't give any comparative reference either on whether it is more than 50% or the majority

A recent study has found that, surprisingly, the risk of serious

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A recent study has found that, surprisingly, the risk of serious

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards