Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a state jud

C might be a valid reason not to find the computer manufacturers liable, but it's irrelevant regarding the consolidation of the cases, which is the issue at hand.

In fact, if C were more strongly worded (more on that below), it might actually strengthen the argument to consolidate, since the same issue would arise in every case. Basically, the judge could preside over every case against the computer manufacturers together and throw them out en masse for the same reason, saving taxpayers the cost of hundreds of different trials.

Further, C does not bring out a key difference between the two types of cases - it provides no information at all about the cause of injury in the asbestos cases. Since C only provides info about one of the two, it's impossible to classify it as a "key difference" indicator.

Another reason to eliminate C is its weak language. For weakening questions, the general rules is that we want a powerful reason to doubt the conclusion. Qualified language, such as "one of the most common", generally indicates wrong answers on strengthen and weaken questions.

For example, what exactly does "one of the most common causes" mean? It could mean that it's true 80% of the time. However, it could also mean that there are 100 different causes and, at a 5% occurrence rate, this explanation is among the most common 2 or 3 of those 100. Since we can't quantify C without outside information, it can't be the right answer.

As a small aside, assumption and inference questions have the exact opposite trap; for those question types, we typically avoid extreme wording in the answers.

Oh nice question which takes long to understand, but at the end, everything fits together.
Btw: the judge would have a lot of work, when processing suits of GMAT test takers, because of theirs eye injury

Stuart, thanks for the explanation. I now get it.

Both A & D are valid. Question would have been great w/o D in it. Different outcomes DO lead to different rulings, it's a common sense; you dont have to be a lawyer. One is death, another is discomfort. Clearly packing them together in one case is wrong. There is a too big of a contrast between outcomes (death vs discomfort) to ignore option D.

I went with D. But as per skovinsky, the OA is A.

Edit: I agree with PussInBoots. D is too tempting to ignore.

D is a comparison trap. The answer choice will compare two things which are irrelevant to the conclusion. We are interested in "why" of consolidation rather than the "extent" of the damage.

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

A

We need the choice that suggests most strongly that the judge was wrong to consolidate the cases. Remember, the judge agreed to consolidate the cases based on the precedent set by asbestos exposure cases. So the best way to cast doubt on the judge's decision is to break the link between the asbestos cases (his evidence) and these repetitive stress injury cases (his conclusion). (A) points out a significant difference between the two situations. In the asbestos cases the product in question was the same in each situation, while in the stress injury cases, the type and quality of office equipment is different in each case, suggesting that there may be differences in manufacturer liabilities. So there is less of a reason for combining the individual cases, and the asbestos cases make a poor precedent.

(B) is tricky. It might seem unfair that the judge's decision may benefit the defense by limiting the number of witnesses for the plaintiffs, but (B) doesn't attack the judge's reasoning, which was based on legal precedent. Instead, (B) weakens the author's argument that the decision will hurt the defense. (C) brings up a common cause of repetitive stress injuries, but doesn't tell us that it was actually the problem in these cases. More importantly, it does nothing to show that the judge was wrong to combine the cases. (D) points out a difference between asbestos exposure and repetitive stress injuries, but it's a difference in the severity of the injuries. This doesn't indicate that the judge was wrong to see a legal parallel between the two types of cases. As for (E), the judge's decision to combine the cases doesn't in any way preclude an investigation of the medical condition that the plaintiffs claim. The judge hasn't assigned responsibility or rendered a verdict, only decided on a method of proceeding with the cases.

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.