Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety

Premises:
Industrial accidents are more common when some people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do.
Even after treatment, people with a history are more likely to have drinking problems again

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

We need to weaken it.

Options (B), (C) and (D) seem to be causing trouble.

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

"Many accidents" are caused by employees who do not hold safety sensitive jobs. But we are given that Industrial accidents are MORE common when some people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do. So the accidents become MORE common in our context. It doesn't matter how many take place in other circumstances.

C.Workers who would permanently lose their jos if they sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.
Our conclusion says that we should bar anyone "who has ever been treated". It doesn't say bar anyone who has a drinking problem (which might be far more difficult to identify anyway). If there is a policy in which workers who take treatment are barred from their jobs, workers with drinking problem may decide to not seek treatment at all. In that case, the risk of accidents will not reduce. Hence this is the answer.

D.People who hld safety-sentive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.

Safety sensitive jobs could worsen the drinking problem. So that is more of a reason to not hire people with drinking problem (mind you, not those who have sought treatment) on such jobs. It doesn't weaken our conclusion.

Answer (C)

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.

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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave
No connection with the question stem - Drop it

Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
"many" does not give enough information. and i think it goes against the premise of the question - drop it

Workers who would permanently lose their jos if they sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.
If there is no record of any treatment of drinking problem, the employer wont bar workers from working in safety-sensetive jobs and still have the risk of accidents - keep it

People who hld safety-sentive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
This is a tricky / trap options. It says that stress can increase the risk of drinking problem (which employee already had). please see the word "exacerbate". it doesnt say that due to stress employee will start drinking. So in my opinion this option actually supports the conclusion. It gives another reason to emplyer not to put peeple with prior drinking problems on this job. Drop it

Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by emplyer error.
"some" doesnt give enough information - Drop it

P1: Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do.
P2: 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 treating for a drinking problem from holding a safety=sensitive job.

The argument goes as follows:
- accidents are more frequent when people in the safety business have drinking problems
- people who've had drinking problems stand a greater chance of have drinking problems in the future
- in order to reduce the risk of accidents, employers must not hire anyone who has been treated for drinking issues

B is definitely out because it does not touch on the issue of "people with drinking problems". The argument specifically discusses reducing risk of accidents as a result of having fewer employees with a history of alcohol abuse. In this respect, B is somewhat like A: it's an issue that's parallel to the argument itself.

OK so C presents an issue with such an unforgiving policy, i.e. not hiring anyone who's had treatment: this creates an incentive for people with issues to lie. If such a policy were not in place, then people might seek treatment and therefore fewer people with drinking problems will be on the job. However, if you make it clear that anyone who's been treated before is not welcome, such a drastic measure might discourage some from seeking help, which means that they'll do anything in their power to avoid being detected. In other words, such a policy (of not hiring someone who's received help in the past) might backfire because people now have an added incentive to lie about their condition. So C is a good option (not a perfect one).

Now D is one of my favorite options because it presents a different cause for something. It's the jobs themselves that are making people more likely to have drinking problems. So the idea you could derive from this option is that no matter what you do, you won't be able to eliminate the risk of accidents completely, since the job in itself is stressful and causes people to drink. However, you'd be missing a very subtle note here: the phrase that makes this option less convincing is "exacerbate problems that they may have". If you don't have drinking problems to begin with, then you won't necessarily develop them later. If you already do, then it get even worse and the potential for issues later on greatly increases. D actually supports the passage.




The correct answer is definitely choice C, as many have pointed out.

Choice C tells us that current workers may actually have a (current) drinking problem. So, by replacing them with those who have been treated for their drinking problem, we may actually decrease the risk of accidents, thereby weakening the argument.

That some companies' policy is to put drinkers in residential treatment is clealy irrelelvant. Thus, choice A is incorrect.

Because the argument was about reducing the risk of accident through a certain policy, that some accidents are attributable to an alternative explanation is irrelevant. Thus, choice B is incorrect.

We don't care that safety-sensiive job holders are more likely to become drinkers. We care about whether the policy against hiring them will lead to a reduction in the risk of accident. Thus, choice D is incorrect.

Choice E is wrong for the same reason that choice B is wrong: that some accidents are attributable to an alternative explanation is irrelevant.

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 treating for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - Any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treating for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job since people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking problems in the future

A.Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave - Irrelevant

B.Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs. - Incorrect - we are only concerned with 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. - Correct

D.People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems. - Incorrect - this is just a nature of the job and does not undermine the plan

E.Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employer error. - Out of scope - we are not concerned about accidents caused by equipment failure

Answer C
_________________

Premises:
Industrial accidents are more common when some people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do.
Even after treatment, people with a history are more likely to have drinking problems again

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

We need to weaken it.

Options (B), (C) and (D) seem to be causing trouble.

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

"Many accidents" are caused by employees who do not hold safety sensitive jobs. But we are given that Industrial accidents are MORE common when some people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do. So the accidents become MORE common in our context. It doesn't matter how many take place in other circumstances.

C.Workers who would permanently lose their jos if they sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.
Our conclusion says that we should bar anyone "who has ever been treated". It doesn't say bar anyone who has a drinking problem (which might be far more difficult to identify anyway). If there is a policy in which workers who take treatment are barred from their jobs, workers with drinking problem may decide to not seek treatment at all. In that case, the risk of accidents will not reduce. Hence this is the answer.

D.People who hld safety-sentive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.

Safety sensitive jobs could worsen the drinking problem. So that is more of a reason to not hire people with drinking problem (mind you, not those who have sought treatment) on such jobs. It doesn't weaken our conclusion.

Answer (C)

The argument is that 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


This is based on the fact that even after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely to have
drinking problems again
and
industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems

This assumes that people drink before or during work in such a way that there is an increased risk of accidents

We are asked to undermine

A - does not affect the argument. Incorrect
B - My concern with this is that it attempts to argue against the claim by stating "many accidents" are due to an alternate reason
The argument is concerned with accidents caused by those in safety-sensitive jobs and the premise states "industrial accidents"
It could be that the employer is only worried about safety-sensitive job accidents, so the argument still stands.
C - shows that the plan won't take effect and that workplace risk will actually increase.
D - doesn't argue against the plan to ban them though..
E - is incorrect- is a weak statement here that could co-exist with drinking problem issue.

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?
Prethink: Conclusion says that employer should bar people with drinking problem. Need to show that this action can cause more harm than good


A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
-> This doesn't help the argument as argument suggest that even after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking problems in the future.

B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
-> This is irrelevant here. There can be hundreds of reason for accidents, we are focusing on drinking problem.

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 is good. Now if people hide the history or don't take treatment, they will be more likely to get involve in accidents.

D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
-> Now this is moving argument to stress which we need not address here
E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.
->Again out of scope argument. Other factors are not the concern here

Any experts could explain option D further?

most replies argue that D is supporting the argument but my question is what if someone has mild drinking problems but didnt know that he needed treatments. Since he didn't have any treatment record, he successfully got the job. the risk caused by him is severe

I am not an expert but try to give my 2 cents on your concern. Hope it helps.
Your concern regarding the worker does not know he has problem is valid. However, if we read word for word, I think that D is irrelevant not supportive (strengthen) to the argument.

The conclusion of the argument argue that companies should not hire "anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem". Option D does not talk about people with that criteria but rather general population. Therefore, I think D is out of scope not strenghthen.

I've noticed B,C,D as the most common options. I chose C and eliminated B and D for the following reason.

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.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
This option is wrong because the topic is focusing on drinking-related issues and accidents. This may be true, but it isn't really relevant to the argument

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.
Ultimately the argument is saying people with drinking problems should not be allowed this job, and this answer does not relate to the question at hand