Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 21:14 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 21:14
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
778,095
 [8]
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,095
 [8]
Kudos
Add Kudos
8
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Krishh9119
Joined: 10 Mar 2017
Last visit: 25 Apr 2021
Posts: 43
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 191
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Posts: 43
Kudos: 74
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
debjit1990
Joined: 26 Dec 2017
Last visit: 14 Nov 2025
Posts: 257
Own Kudos:
281
 [1]
Given Kudos: 22
Location: India
GMAT 1: 580 Q42 V27
Products:
GMAT 1: 580 Q42 V27
Posts: 257
Kudos: 281
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
exc4libur
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Last visit: 22 Mar 2022
Posts: 1,686
Own Kudos:
1,447
 [1]
Given Kudos: 607
Location: United States
Posts: 1,686
Kudos: 1,447
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
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.

argument
= factory closed and many claimed for injury compensation
= these claims are based on personal gain and to help job loss
= assumes claims are false

not weaken

Ans (C) if workers had received an injury, they would have claimed it before the factory was closed.
User avatar
pabpinor
Joined: 05 Aug 2019
Last visit: 24 Oct 2025
Posts: 401
Own Kudos:
213
 [1]
Given Kudos: 133
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28 (Online)
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.23
WE:General Management (Real Estate)
Products:
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V37
Posts: 401
Kudos: 213
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
So we have:
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.

In few words, we have that after a factory's closure job-related injuries compensation claims started to be filed by employees who were just seeking benefits they did not deserve (so without reason).

We are asked for an argument that DOES NOT WEAKEN the author point:


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. This weakens it. Gives a reason for those late claims

(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims. This also weakens it, would give an explanation for claims now.

(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury. This does not support the argument directly, but somehow helps with determining most of those claims as unlawful.

(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. This clearly weakens it, not interesting.

(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. This does not directly weaken it, but somehow would help understand some grow on the numbers of late claims. Not good for us though.

Having C as the only "useful" argument, as the question is not weakens, we have it as our best option.

Regards,
Pablo
User avatar
CareerGeek
Joined: 20 Jul 2017
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,292
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 162
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q51 V30
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 690 Q51 V30
Posts: 1,292
Kudos: 4,267
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Option C

Since, workers have to apply for compensation on the same day of injury, applying for the compensation after the factory is closed clearly shows that they’re trying to gain benefits they don’t deserve.
So, this strengthens the argument above.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
gaurav2m
Joined: 15 Apr 2018
Last visit: 22 Mar 2021
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 382
Location: India
Schools: NUS '20
Schools: NUS '20
Posts: 62
Kudos: 39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel

Competition Mode Question



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.


Hi @veritasKarishma/ GMATNinja,

Could you please let me know how option E is weakening the conclusion
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gaurav2m
Bunuel

Competition Mode Question



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.


Hi @veritasKarishma/ GMATNinja,

Could you please let me know how option E is weakening the conclusion
Remember, the conclusion is:

    ...there is reason to beileve 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.

Whoever wrote this letter has concluded that there was NO reason for these former employees to file for compensation, except to "weather their job loss."

Consequently, ANY answer choice that provides an alternate reason why former employees would have filed for this compensation will weaken the argument.

Now, here's choice (E):
Quote:
(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.
We know that the claims filed for compensation sharply increased after the factory closed. If (E) is true, then the former employees could easily have seen the closing coming, become depressed, and then succumbed to job-related injuries as a result.

Filing for compensation due to a job-related injury of any kind is NOT simply trying to "weather their job loss" or "gain benefits they did not deserve." That's why (E) weakens the conclusion, and that's why we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
gaurav2m
Joined: 15 Apr 2018
Last visit: 22 Mar 2021
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 382
Location: India
Schools: NUS '20
Schools: NUS '20
Posts: 62
Kudos: 39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
gaurav2m
Bunuel

Competition Mode Question



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.


Hi @veritasKarishma/ GMATNinja,

Could you please let me know how option E is weakening the conclusion
Remember, the conclusion is:

    ...there is reason to beileve 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.

Whoever wrote this letter has concluded that there was NO reason for these former employees to file for compensation, except to "weather their job loss."

Consequently, ANY answer choice that provides an alternate reason why former employees would have filed for this compensation will weaken the argument.

Now, here's choice (E):
Quote:
(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.
We know that the claims filed for compensation sharply increased after the factory closed. If (E) is true, then the former employees could easily have seen the closing coming, become depressed, and then succumbed to job-related injuries as a result.

Filing for compensation due to a job-related injury of any kind is NOT simply trying to "weather their job loss" or "gain benefits they did not deserve." That's why (E) weakens the conclusion, and that's why we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!

Thank you for the response.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,836
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,836
Kudos: 986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts