It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 20:50

### 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

# Letter to the editor: After Baerton s factory closed, there

Author Message
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 633

Kudos [?]: 427 [0], given: 0

Letter to the editor: After Baerton s factory closed, there [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2007, 09:37
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:56) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory’s former employees, Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearings loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
(D) Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
(E) Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.

Kudos [?]: 427 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 490

Kudos [?]: 269 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2007, 09:51
I think only B is irrevelant.

All others can weaken the argument.

A) weakens it.
C) weakens it (you might suffer from the injury days later after injury on the job)
D) weakens it (before they didn't apply because they cannot live with only the compensation, they have to keep working. Now that the factory is closing, they cannot keep working; therefore, they need to file for compensation.)
E) weakens it (workers worried about out of job and get depressed and prone to injury, they might injury themselves on the last day of job; therefore, claim the benefit after the factory is closed.)

Kudos [?]: 269 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 301

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Re: CR: Job-related injury compensation [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2007, 10:40
[quote="eyunni"]Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory’s former employees, Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearings loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
Weakens
(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
This meas perople were getting injured but did not file for fear of loss
(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
Strenghthens
(D) Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
Weekens
(E) Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.
Weekensquote]

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1098

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

Location: London
Re: CR: Job-related injury compensation [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2007, 12:57
eyunni wrote:
Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory’s former employees, Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearings loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.-- since workers normally get compentation while on duty, there should not be any reason for further compensation other than being a benefit thief- this one strengthens
(D) Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
(E) Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.

C for me

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 633

Kudos [?]: 427 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2007, 13:03
yes. OA is C.

Kudos [?]: 427 [0], given: 0

13 Nov 2007, 13:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by