Many workers who handled substance T in factories became seriously ill

I believe answer C suggests that the manufacturer was fully aware of the implications of the substance T. However, the argument states that the manufacturer has "Earlier ignorance..." which means it is not aware of the consequences.

Posted from my mobile device

There is significant difference between what C and E imply.

(C) Manufacturers have an obligation to inform workers of health risks of which they are aware.

This statement only implies a duty to "inform workers". It does not state that there should be consequences for the manufacturer.

versus:

(E) Manufacturers should be held responsible for the consequences of any of their actions that harm innocent people if those consequences were preventable.

This statement goes the extra mile and correctly states that the manufacturer must face consequences. Unlike C, E does not simply stop at "obligation to inform workers".

The conclusion indicated in E coincides with the implication stated in the orginal question statements.

Hello Experts,

Why can't the answer be B? In C, i negated because of the word "innocent people".
What if the action of manufacturer isn't harming any innocent people? Then also he should be responsible which is stated in B.

Please explain.

I believe the answer lies with the keyword "ONLY" on answer B. GMAT answer choices for these specific, sweeping generalisations are often wrong. Answer choice B states that companies are responsible ONLY for those preventable. What about those not preventable?

Perhaps others can chip in.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi

Option (B) states: Manufacturers should be held responsible only for the preventable consequences of their actions.

You are perfectly right that this does, in a way, justify the argument presented in the stimulus. However, it does more than that. The usage of "only" suggests that other cases are excluded from this treatment ie; manufacturers should not be held responsible for non-preventable consequences and should be held responsible for preventable consequences. There is nothing in the stimulus about "preventable" actions, so this part of option (B) is irrelevant to the argument. Since the question asks which option most justifies the conclusion, option (E) is better, though option (B) is not entirely incorrect.

As to the usage of "innocent people" in option (E), the stimulus clearly tells us that employees who handled T fell ill because of it - it is reasonable to categorize these employees as "innocent" as they had nothing to do with the toxicity of T and also they were unaware of it.

Hope this helps.

Hello Sir,

I second that but just need to understand few points in your explanation:
1. Though option B talks about consequences of actions, so does option E. " Consequences of any of their action.
Then how to reject B.
2. What is the trick to mark the correct option when other option is so subtle to find a mistake.

Thanks
Lakshay

Hi Lakshay

I agree on the part about "consequences" - I did not notice that aspect about option (E). I have edited my response accordingly. As mentioned above, I believe there is sufficient reason even without it to rule out option (B).

Always remember that the ask is always to pick the best answer option. Many times on the GMAT, more than one option may be partly correct - you need to analyse and decide which option is more complete and fits the requirement better among those you are considering. The criteria of assessment will obviously vary depending on the question - but always that which addresses the requirement fully and directly is a better option than one that only attacks the requirement peripherally or indirectly.

You're right to read precisely and take into account any extreme wording. However, sometimes extreme wording is perfectly fine, because the passage itself is being extreme.

It's my duty to remind everyone that the takeaway here is NOT that "sweeping generalisations are often wrong." Falling back on that assumption at any point makes waste of the consistent, disciplined reasoning skills that we all spend so much time building up to improve our GMAT scores.

All that said, recall that the conclusion is, "Earlier ignorance of this connection does not absolve T's manufacturer of responsibility."

Here's how the logic supporting this conclusion breaks down:

• T caused at least some serious illnesses among many workers who handled T.
• Had T's manufacturer investigated the safety of T before allowing workers to be exposed to it, many of those worker illnesses would have been prevented.
• Consequently, earlier ignorance of this connection does not absolve T's manufacturer of all responsibility.

Both (B) and (E) tell us to hold manufacturers responsible for the consequences of their actions. So what makes one a better answer choice than the other?


Choice (E) states that we should hold manufacturers responsible for the consequences of ANY of those actions, provided those consequences were preventable. This fits very well into the logic of the passage:

• T caused at least some serious illnesses among many workers who handled T.
• Manufacturers should be held responsible for the consequences of ANY of their actions that harm innocent people if those consequences were preventable.
• Had T's manufacturer investigated the safety of T before allowing workers to be exposed to it, many of those worker illnesses would have been prevented.
• Consequently, earlier ignorance of this connection does not absolve T's manufacturer of all responsibility.

If we should hold T's manufacturer responsible for ANY actions leading to preventable consequences, then surely ignorance of this connection does not absolve T's manufacturer of ALL responsibility. That's why we keep (E).


Choice (B) states that we should hold manufacturers responsible for their actions ONLY when the consequences of their actions are preventable. This implies that we should NOT hold manufacturers responsible for their actions when the consequences of their actions are not preventable.

This wording sends us away from the logic of the argument. If the author is making a case to hold T's manufacturer responsible in spite of earlier ignorance, the author would not reach for a principle that broadly limits when we can hold manufacturers responsible.

On top of all this, why would the author reach for (B) as a supporting principle when (E) fits the author's argument much more directly?

Choice (B) might work in a pinch, but (E) does more to help justify the conclusion. That's why (E) is the better choice.

I hope this helps!

Can someone explain option D -? Does the premise talks about preventable illness only since it says that if they would have known the harmful affects of T, they could have prevented it?

GMATNinja @VeritasKarishma

Many workers who handled substance T in factories became seriously ill years later. We now know T caused at least some of their illnesses. Earlier ignorance of this connection does not absolve T’s manufacturer of all responsibility. For had it investigated the safety of T before allowing workers to be exposed to it, many of their illnesses would have been prevented.

Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the conclusion above?

(A) Employees who are harmed by substances they handle on the job should be compensated for medical costs they incur as a result. - WRONG. No help as far as justifying of conclusion is concerned.

(B) Manufacturers should be held responsible only for the preventable consequences of their actions. - WRONG. No problem as such on the first instance but what about non preventable consequences. E is better relative.

(C) Manufacturers have an obligation to inform workers of health risks of which they are aware. - WRONG. Does informing absolves them??

(D) Whether or not an action’s consequences were preventable is irrelevant to whether a manufacturer should be held responsible for those consequences. - WRONG. This just goes out of scope for destroying the passage. It goes in a direction where scope of passage is not at all covered.

(E) Manufacturers should be held responsible for the consequences of any of their actions that harm innocent people if those consequences were preventable - CORRECT. Investigation is one of the actions of manufacturer that may or may not harm people later as a consequence.

Answer E.

The argument concludes that earlier "ignorance does not absolve T's manufacturer of all responsibility." Why? Because "many of their illnesses would have been prevented" if the manufacturer had "investigated the safety of T before allowing workers to be exposed to it."

Let's now consider (D):


Does this justify the conclusion? Well, the conclusion hinges on the idea that the manufacturer is not absolved because the illnesses could have been prevented. So according to the argument, the fact that the illness was preventable is not only relevant, but totally crucial to the conclusion.

Put another way: to justify the conclusion, we'd want to say that being preventable is relevant, not irrelevant. For that reason, we can eliminate (D).

I hope that helps!