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

Question

Citing the legal precedent set by asbestos exposure cases, a state judge agreed to combine a series of workplace disability cases involving repetitive stress injuries to the hands and wrists. The judge’s decision to consolidate hundreds of suits by data entry workers, word processors, newspaper employees, and other workers who use computers into one case is likely to prove detrimental for the computer manufacturing companies being sued, notwithstanding the defense’s argument that the cases should not be combined because of the different individuals and workplaces involved.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the validity of the judge’s decision to consolidate the cases?

A. Unlike asbestos exposure cases, in which the allegedly liable product is the same in each situation, the type and quality of the allegedly liable office equipment is different in each case.

B. The fact that consolidation will accelerate the legal process may prove advantageous for the defense, as it limits the number of witnesses who can testify for the plaintiffs.

C. One of the most common causes of repetitive stress injuries is companies’ failure to allow its employees adequate rest time from using computer keyboards.

D. Whereas exposure to asbestos often leads to fatal forms of cancer, repetitive stress injury typically results in personal discomfort and only rarely in unemployability.

E. The issue of responsibility for repetitive stress injury cannot be resolved without first addressing the question of its existence as an actual medical condition.

This is from the Kaplan Practice Test

skovinsky · Answer

Hi,

we identify a weakening question, so our task is to find the judge's conclusion, summarize the judge's evidence and then identify the judge's assumption. We then predict that the correct answer will attack the judge's assumption, severing the link between the evidence and the conclusion.

Conclusion: should consolidate the repetitive stress cases
Evidence: precedent set by asbestos cases

What's the missing link? Here, the judge has to be assuming that the reasons for consolidation in the asbestos cases also apply to the repetitive stress cases.

Our prediction to weaken: a key difference between the asbestos cases and the repetitive stress cases.

Only A and D even mention the asbestos cases, so we can quickly eliminate B, C and E.

A: a key difference between the types of cases - correct!

D: focuses on the varying severity of injuries, not the legal aspects of the cases. We're not expected to be legal experts, so we don't know if severity of injury is a valid legal difference. If we don't know, then (D) is by definition outside of the scope.

Here's a good general rule to follow: if an answer requires you to apply outside information (i.e. facts/knowledge not stated in the stimulus or the choice), then it's not the correct answer to the question.

arvindg · Answer

I chose C because (I thought) it brings out a key difference between the asbestos and the RSI scenarios. If the companies (employers) had given adequate rest time, then their employees would not have developed RSI. This places the blame on the employers instead of the computer equipment manufacturers (who are being sued).

I get the line of thinking that results in the answer A, but it would be useful to know how/why to rule out an answer such as C.

I get the line of thinking that results in the answer A, but it would be useful to know how/why to rule out an answer such as C.

skovinsky · Answer

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.

craky · Answer

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

arvindg · Answer

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

PussInBoots · Answer

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.

naveenhv · Answer

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

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

gmat1220 · Answer

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.

Bunuel · Answer

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.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

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