Quik Snak management claim - Critical reasoning

Question

An employee representative of the Quik Snak company has released a report containing information about thirty employees at the company’s central meat-packing plant, all of whom were hospitalized with hepatitis. This report follows a similar one released last month by a local epidemiologist pointing out a sharp rise in the number of diagnoses of hepatitis among workers at the same plant. Quik Snak management, however, maintains that the ill employees must have contracted the disease while off the job.

Which one of the following statements, if true, would cast the most doubt on the Quik Snak management’s claim?

A>The thirty hospitalized workers were all diagnosed with other illnesses as well.
 
B>The epidemiologist’s report was scientifically sound.
 
c>The Quik Snak company is privately held, and will not publicly release its safety record.
 
D>All of the workers in question suffered from Hepatitis A, which is most frequently transmitted through tainted food.
 
E>No workers other than the thirty who were hospitalized show any signs of having hepatitis.

can anyone please explain why OA is correct? Because, there is a chance that the workers would have got the food from near by hotel, where the food would have contaminated.

aniteshgmat1101 · Answer

I think apart from option D, no other option has even a slight chance to weaken the argument.
D shows a chance that contraction might have happened in the factory with available food.
Weakeners and strengtheners may have a "slight" effect, unlike Assumptions which is mandatory for an argument to be true.
Sometimes OA is not the one absolutely correct, but the one which is least wrong.

SivaKumarP · Answer

Thanks Anitesh for reply. But why not option 'B', which weakens the claim with the support of the epidemiologist’s report .

How to determine which is the least wrong one when two options have the same intense of the meaning/claim :roll:

? Much appreciate your response.

aniteshgmat1101 · Answer

Hi,
In CR first of all it is very important to understand the exact Question asked.
Which one of the following statements, if true, would cast the most doubt on the  Quik Snak management’s claim ?
Quik Snak management’s claim is ill employees must have contracted the disease off the job. 
That means, Quik Snak management does not deny the fact that illness/disease is spread, but it is claiming about the
place where employees may have had contracted the disease.
Option B provides a support to the validity of illness data and has nothing to do with management`s claim.

SivaKumarP · Answer

Yes, it makes sense, I'm clear now. Thanks for the wonderful explanation :-)

MorningRunner · Answer

Now,
D says.. All of the workers in question suffered from Hepatitis A, which is most frequently transmitted through tainted food...
Nowhere in the argument says that meat packing plant uses "tainted food"..

those employees could have come across tainted food outside the plant as well.. !

E says that, only these 30 people caught hepatitis.. and all 30 belonged to the plant.. and no one outside the plant.. 
I understand that these people could have caught hepatitis outside as well... But compared to option D, this one weakens more...

Whats wrong in my thinking?

Just doubting on OA....

arkle · Answer

An employee representative of the Quik Snak company has released a report containing information about thirty employees at the company’s central meat-packing plant, all of whom were hospitalized with hepatitis. This report follows a similar one released last month by a local epidemiologist pointing out a sharp rise in the number of diagnoses of hepatitis among workers at the same plant. Quik Snak management, however, maintains that the ill employees must have contracted the disease while off the job.

Premise/Evidence # 1 - Report by an employee that contains information abt. 30 employees. These 30 employees have two things in common -

a) all of them work at a meat/food packing plant.
b) all of them are suffering from a disease (hepatitis).

What does this point to? - Perhaps there is some correlation between their disease and their place of work, but we don't know yet. It could be, it could be not.

Evidence # 2 - "This report follows a similar one released last month by a local epidemiologist pointing out a sharp rise in the number of diagnoses of hepatitis among workers at the same plant."

A previous report has linked the disease to the plant.

But QS company says that employees must have contracted the disease while off the job. We have to find an answer choice that weakens company's claim and strengthens our assertion that there is something wrong in this meat packing plant.

Which one of the following statements, if true, would cast the most doubt on the Quik Snak management’s claim?

A>The thirty hospitalized workers were all diagnosed with other illnesses as well. -- Irrelevant. We are only concerned abt. one specific disease (hepatitis).

B>The epidemiologist’s report was scientifically sound. - Strengthens E # 2,but doesn't directly weakens the company's claim. I will keep this for now.

c>The Quik Snak company is privately held, and will not publicly release its safety record. -- Irrelevant.

D>All of the workers in question suffered from Hepatitis A, which is most frequently transmitted through tainted food. -- This looks better than B.

This directly weakens company's argument by stating that Hepatitis A, which is most frequently transmitted through tainted food.

refer to 1(a) abv-
The only thing common between these 30 guys is that they work at a meat/food packing plant. The stem doesn't tell us any other thing that is common. If they belong to same family, eat together,sleep together etc. etc. are all unfounded assumptions that the argument doesn't support.
ergo the only place they could have got it is a common place(meat packing plant) and also the disease spreads via contaminated food. Weakens the company's claim and hence the answer.

E>No workers other than the thirty who were hospitalized show any signs of having hepatitis. -- Out of scope. If at all this strengthens company's claim by stating that other workers are healthy, so these 30 must have caught hepatitis from somewhere outside. We have to weaken remember!

**sorry for the typos and/or grammer mistakes if any. Hope it helps! 8-)

kanigmat011 · Answer

Hi 
as u quoted above the main argument to be weaken is workers did not receive the hepatitis within the factory.

But option D only states that workers received hepatitis from tainted food, but no where its stated that the tainted food was provided within factory.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Quik Snak management claim - Critical reasoning

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Quik Snak management claim - Critical reasoning

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards