It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 07:55

# STARTING SOON:

Live Chat with Cornell Adcoms in Main Chat Room  |  R1 Interview Invites: MIT Sloan Chat  |  UCLA Anderson Chat  |  Duke Fuqua Chat (EA Decisions)

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 547

Kudos [?]: 537 [1], given: 2

Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 07:28
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 11 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs
have drinking problems than when none do. Since, even after treatment, people who
have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking
problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar
anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive
job.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in
residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not
hold safety-sensitive jobs.
C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a
drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as
long as possible.
D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate
any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by
employee error.

Kudos [?]: 537 [1], given: 2

Director
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 797

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 9

Location: Texas
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2011

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 10:12
I would say B.

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 9

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 685

Kudos [?]: 601 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 11:07
B for me

B & C come close, as it is undermining the argument it is B

"Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs
have drinking problems than when none do"

If it were undermining the conclusion then it would have been C. what say folks?
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

Kudos [?]: 601 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 314

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 11:08
jbpayne wrote:
I would say B.

I also tend to agree with B ,but a question if in E instead of word "some" , if "many" was used . Would that be a correct answer?

What I have figured out that sometimes you can just eliminate some choices because of the usage of words like "some","many" etc. ....is that true?

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 797

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 9

Location: Texas
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2011

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 11:16
It's usually the extreme words like all, none, everyone, etc. Some, many, and a few are words that are more apt to be correct and should be considered as possible selections.

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 9

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 535

Kudos [?]: 180 [3], given: 0

Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 13:55
3
KUDOS
Premise:
Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs
have drinking problems than when none do.

Premise:
Since, even after treatment, people who
have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking
problems in the future

Conclusion:
any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive
job.

The conclusion is that an employer should bar people treated and not necessarily people who drink. If you drink and never go get treatment you can still work.

B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not
hold safety-sensitive jobs.

This doesn't add any new information and therefore cannot be correct. The premise already stated that it was common for accidents to be the cause of people who drink. Therefore some accidents have to be commited by people who don't drink. Many does not give any real reference. How many is 'many'? If 15 out 100 accidents were by non drinkers could this be refered to as many? Yes, so this add no new information.

C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a
drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as
long as possible.

This attacks the true argument. If you say you will not hire people who go for treatment and everyone decides not to go to treatment then you aren't really doing anything. In fact you may be hurting yourself because now the drinkers still work at you company but yet they aren't getting the treatment they need to help them get better.

Kudos [?]: 180 [3], given: 0

VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1434

Kudos [?]: 350 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 14:12
saravalli wrote:
Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs
have drinking problems than when none do. Since, even after treatment, people who
have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking
problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar
anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive
job.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in
residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not
hold safety-sensitive jobs.
C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a
drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as
long as possible.
D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate
any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by
employee error.

C for me.

Argument: employer should bar anyone that have past drinking problem because they tend to drink again

C weakens the argument by saying that workers will not seek treatment because are afraid to lose their job. Therefore, the problems lies in people being afraid of losing their job, not recurring drinking problem.

A, D, E are irrelevant.
In B, "many" makes this argument weak. Moreover, we are talking about workers that hold safety-sensitive jobs, not the opposite. The stem clearly says that "industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs
have drinking problems". B is actually irrelevant.

Kudos [?]: 350 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3351

Kudos [?]: 319 [0], given: 2

Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 14:25
i am going with C..

if the company is trying to reduce risk by eliminating people with drinking issues..then C weakens it most..

the argument talks about risk vs saying we need to reduce accidents..

Kudos [?]: 319 [0], given: 2

Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 786

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 14:53
hmmm, all picked B and C here...

I ll have to go with D. will explain if it is correct

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 25

Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 98

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 14:57
I'm going with C
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 210

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 May 2008, 19:52
I am picking C and totally agree with the reasoning cited in the earlier post by gixxer. For those who care to know, this Question is from the ScoreTop Sets (Verbal - Set 30, Q 19) and the answer seem to be C. Unfortunately, I couldn't find an explanation from the material I have.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 547

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

14 May 2008, 07:14
OA: C Thanks

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 145

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 May 2008, 17:40
Nice one.
I was stuck between C and D.
D is all the more reason to not give them the job in the first place.

So its C.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 May 2008, 19:46
saravalli wrote:
Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs
have drinking problems than when none do. Since, even after treatment, people who
have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking
problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar
anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive
job.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in
residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not
hold safety-sensitive jobs.
C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a
drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as
long as possible.
D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate
any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by
employee error.

I exceeded 3 minutes on this question, which is bad.

I choose C.

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2947

Kudos [?]: 666 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

25 May 2008, 16:49
+1 to both saravalli and gixxer for a great question and superb explanation

Kudos [?]: 666 [0], given: 210

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 295

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 3

Location: Hungary

### Show Tags

26 May 2008, 06:17
First I thought the answer is D, but now I see why the correct answer is C.

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 3

Intern
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Location: NEW JERSEY

### Show Tags

26 May 2008, 10:20
Why it is not E??

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10117

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2016, 20:01
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.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people   [#permalink] 17 Apr 2016, 20:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by