Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0710:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Is your GMAT score high enough for top business schools? In Episode 3 of the GMAT Club MBA Podcast, we tackle the most debated question in MBA admissions: What’s a good GMAT score?
Sep 0711:00 AM PDT
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to evaluate your current skill level, learn process skills, and solve through tough Arithmetic questions.- Sep 08
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Crafting strong MBA essays isn’t just about storytelling — it’s about showing admissions committees who you are beyond your resume and test scores. In this GMAT Club Podcast episode, Brian and Maria along with Bruce DelMonico... 
Sep 0910:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep...
Sep 1010:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
Join GMAT LiveTeach with perfect 805-scorer Julia Shackelford for expert strategies and rapid results. Classes start Monday, September 22, and seating is limited. Reserve your place before they are all taken.- Sep 13
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment - Sep 14
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
20 Apr 2025, 23:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is an excerpt from the chapter "Weaken the Conclusion" in our book "EducationAisle Critical Reasoning Nirvana":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterns in Weaken the Conclusion
In the past few quizzes, we have been discussing the above patterns in Weaken the Conclusion questions and solving related questions.
Let us see how skilled you are at applying these patterns, to the question below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
It is well known that healthy employees are generally more productive, contributing effectively to the growth of a company. Since, even after treatment, people who have a history of severe illnesses are somewhat more likely than other people to have recurrent health issues in the future, any company trying to boost the productivity of its employees should have a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness. (Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs)
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
(A) Some companies offer several weeks of paid sick leave to employees who are unwell.
(B) Many employees who have no history of any severe illness can develop severe illnesses.
(C) If a company has a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness, candidates applying to that company would try to conceal their history of illness.
(D) Illnesses of people who have a history of severe illnesses can re-emerge in stressful jobs.
(E) Many perfectly healthy employees have low productivity.
GMAT-Club-Forum-4nxwwdvj.png [ 49.26 KiB | Viewed 308 times ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterns in Weaken the Conclusion
In the past few quizzes, we have been discussing the above patterns in Weaken the Conclusion questions and solving related questions.
Let us see how skilled you are at applying these patterns, to the question below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
It is well known that healthy employees are generally more productive, contributing effectively to the growth of a company. Since, even after treatment, people who have a history of severe illnesses are somewhat more likely than other people to have recurrent health issues in the future, any company trying to boost the productivity of its employees should have a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness. (Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs)
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
(A) Some companies offer several weeks of paid sick leave to employees who are unwell.
(B) Many employees who have no history of any severe illness can develop severe illnesses.
(C) If a company has a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness, candidates applying to that company would try to conceal their history of illness.
(D) Illnesses of people who have a history of severe illnesses can re-emerge in stressful jobs.
(E) Many perfectly healthy employees have low productivity.
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-4nxwwdvj.png [ 49.26 KiB | Viewed 308 times ]
21 Apr 2025, 21:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Solution
C is the correct answer.
The argument presents the following information:
(A) This answer choice mentions the policy of some companies towards employees who are unwell. However, the argument is trying to establish a case that companies should not hire people who has had a history of severe illness. Hence, this answer choice does not address the concern/conclusion of the argument. Incorrect.
(B) This answer choice states that even those employees who have no history of any severe illness, can develop severe illnesses. However, notice that the argument already mentions: "people who have a history of severe illnesses are somewhat more likely than other people to have recurrent health issues in the future". So, the argument already acknowledges that people with no history of any severe illness can develop severe illnesses (just that people with a history of severe illnesses are more likely to have recurrent health issues). So, this answer choice does not provide any new information. Incorrect.
(C) This answer choice is interesting, since it proves the futility of a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness. As per this answer choice, such a policy would encourage candidates applying to that company to conceal their history of illness. Since this is the case, the policy would not work. Correct.
(D) This answer choice is incorrect on two accounts. Firstly it introduces a new condition stressful jobs. This condition is not mentioned or implied in the argument. Secondly, since illnesses of people who have a history of severe illnesses can re-emerge, it actually strengthens the recommendation that people who have had a history of severe illness should not be hired. Incorrect
(E) The argument already mentions: healthy employees are generally more productive. So, the argument already acknowledges that not all healthy employees are more productive. Hence, this answer choice does not provide any new information. Incorrect.
p.s. This is a similar official question, for additional practice.
C is the correct answer.
The argument presents the following information:
- Healthy employees are generally more productive.
- People who have a history of severe illnesses are somewhat more likely than other people to have recurrent health issues.
- Conclusion that we have to weaken: Any company trying to boost the productivity of its employees should have a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness.
(A) This answer choice mentions the policy of some companies towards employees who are unwell. However, the argument is trying to establish a case that companies should not hire people who has had a history of severe illness. Hence, this answer choice does not address the concern/conclusion of the argument. Incorrect.
(B) This answer choice states that even those employees who have no history of any severe illness, can develop severe illnesses. However, notice that the argument already mentions: "people who have a history of severe illnesses are somewhat more likely than other people to have recurrent health issues in the future". So, the argument already acknowledges that people with no history of any severe illness can develop severe illnesses (just that people with a history of severe illnesses are more likely to have recurrent health issues). So, this answer choice does not provide any new information. Incorrect.
(C) This answer choice is interesting, since it proves the futility of a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness. As per this answer choice, such a policy would encourage candidates applying to that company to conceal their history of illness. Since this is the case, the policy would not work. Correct.
(D) This answer choice is incorrect on two accounts. Firstly it introduces a new condition stressful jobs. This condition is not mentioned or implied in the argument. Secondly, since illnesses of people who have a history of severe illnesses can re-emerge, it actually strengthens the recommendation that people who have had a history of severe illness should not be hired. Incorrect
(E) The argument already mentions: healthy employees are generally more productive. So, the argument already acknowledges that not all healthy employees are more productive. Hence, this answer choice does not provide any new information. Incorrect.
p.s. This is a similar official question, for additional practice.
Moderators:
