Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
17 Mar 2020, 11:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:46) correct
30%
(01:55)
wrong
based on 341
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
(A) Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.
(B) Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness.
(C) The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect.
(D) The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.
(E) Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
(A) Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.
(B) Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness.
(C) The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect.
(D) The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.
(E) Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955.
17 Mar 2020, 20:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
lnm87 VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring
Why is (B) incorrect in providing alternate explanation for this causal argument?
Cause: Introduction of legitimization.
Effect: Increased overall safety standards in high-risk industries.
Is it because (B) talks about incorrect time frame?
But one thing I learnt closely while doing LSAT qs is to read precisely.
This choice talks about work-related injuries, whereas argument talks about serious injuries. OUT.
Let me know where I faltered / had gaps in my reasoning.
Why is (B) incorrect in providing alternate explanation for this causal argument?
Quote:
(B) Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness.
Quote:
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
We need to weaken the argument.Cause: Introduction of legitimization.
Effect: Increased overall safety standards in high-risk industries.
Is it because (B) talks about incorrect time frame?
Quote:
In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries.
Quote:
(A) Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.
I thought this answer as OUT OF SCOPE of argument.Quote:
(C) The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect.
I am not too sure if likelihood (in stimulus) can be relate to a ratio / probability or a %tage.But one thing I learnt closely while doing LSAT qs is to read precisely.
This choice talks about work-related injuries, whereas argument talks about serious injuries. OUT.
Quote:
(D) The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.
Again, same as C. OUT.Quote:
(E) Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955.
An OUT OF SCOPE choice. Does nothing to argument.Let me know where I faltered / had gaps in my reasoning.
adkikani
lnm87 VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring
Why is (B) incorrect in providing alternate explanation for this causal argument?
Cause: Introduction of legitimization.
Effect: Increased overall safety standards in high-risk industries.
Is it because (B) talks about incorrect time frame?
But one thing I learnt closely while doing LSAT qs is to read precisely.
This choice talks about work-related injuries, whereas argument talks about serious injuries. OUT.
Let me know where I faltered / had gaps in my reasoning.
Why is (B) incorrect in providing alternate explanation for this causal argument?
Quote:
(B) Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness.
Quote:
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
We need to weaken the argument.Cause: Introduction of legitimization.
Effect: Increased overall safety standards in high-risk industries.
Is it because (B) talks about incorrect time frame?
Quote:
In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries.
Quote:
(A) Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.
I thought this answer as OUT OF SCOPE of argument.Quote:
(C) The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect.
I am not too sure if likelihood (in stimulus) can be relate to a ratio / probability or a %tage.But one thing I learnt closely while doing LSAT qs is to read precisely.
This choice talks about work-related injuries, whereas argument talks about serious injuries. OUT.
Quote:
(D) The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.
Again, same as C. OUT.Quote:
(E) Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955.
An OUT OF SCOPE choice. Does nothing to argument.Let me know where I faltered / had gaps in my reasoning.
First thing first, I faltered in this question and marked D as my answer.
Anyway here's my post-attempt analysis:
In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. - Context presented in the argument.
Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. - A finding after the Govt's increased control.
The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries. - Concusion.
Note - Colored text are cues from argument.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?
(A) Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955. - This was runner-up for me. Initially, i thought this is straight wrong since the option dealt with kind of double negative. A lack of attention is also responsible for leaving it without paying much attention on the highlighted text in the argument. Post attempt the highlighted text in the option should be the guiding light for us.
(B) Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness. - Irrelevant or out of scope for it is not relating anything with the argument actually.
(C) The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect. - Out due to its open claim since it can go either way. Had it been percentage then it could have been a contender. Actually goes in right direction but loses its focus for it speaks broadly.
(D) The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955. - Marked it since i faltered while reading the argument not while reading this option. Again lack of attention to read carefully the highlighted part led me to mark it correct.
(E) Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955. - Goes in favour of the argument rather against it. Similar to C it is broadly speaking.
A is correct because it says that protection while interacting is not needed now but it was needed in 1955.
adkikani you are right about out of scope in B's context but more importantly it's not relating anything from that time to the time after 1955 thus it doesn't attack the conclusion.
Hope this helps...!!
