In the 1920s, surveys of factory workers

Question

In the 1920s, surveys of factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint found an alarming incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer. This paint contained radium, a radioactive element. As a result, the industrial use of radioactive luminous paint was completely stopped by 1960. However, radium stays active for hundreds of years. Therefore, those watch-collectors who own watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 should either bury these watches in the ground or store them in thick lead boxes to protect themselves and the people around them from anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer.

Which one of the following, if true, LEAST strengthens the argument above?

A: The surveys also found that the incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer among factory workers who painted watch dials with non-luminous paint was not greater than that among the general population.
B: The surveys also found that factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint, the extent of their health problems was directly proportional to the cumulative number of hours for which they had worked with luminous paint till then.
C: Barriers of lead or earth provide adequate protection to human beings from harmful radioactive substances.
D: People who wear watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 for more than a decade have an alarming incidence of anemia.
E: Most chemists and laboratory workers who worked with radium for more than a year in the first decade after its discovery in 1898 did not have, for the rest of their lives, a greater incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer than the general population.

abhi19051990 · Answer

Hi

The construction of the argument is as follows:
1. 1920s- workers painting watch dials had alarming incidence of a few diseases.
2. cause can be related to radium, leading to discontinuation of use of radium in 1960.
3. as it remains active for 100 years, current watch collectors are still exposed to the radium and should act on it.

Assumption: The radium is not much effective to damage when it is covered with lead boxes or dumped under the Earth. Also no other component of the paint can be found to be as harmful as the radium.

Any statement supporting these two can land you to the answer. Let's check one by one.

A>The surveys also found that the incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer among factory workers who painted watch dials with non-luminous paint was not greater than that among the general population.
- This tells that workers with non-luminous paints also faced the incidence which was as likely for them as for the general population. Keep this for now.

B> The surveys also found that factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint, the extent of their health problems was directly proportional to the cumulative number of hours for which they had worked with luminous paint till then.
- Exposure to radium is one characteristic and hence this supports the argument to a good extent. Drop this.

C> Barriers of lead or earth provide adequate protection to human beings from harmful radioactive substances.
- This is a straight assumption. Drop this.

D> People who wear watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 for more than a decade have an alarming incidence of anemia.
- This strengthens the argument same as B does.

E> Most chemists and laboratory workers who worked with radium for more than a year in the first decade after its discovery in 1898 did not have, for the rest of their lives, a greater incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer than the general population.
- This statement states a condition with similar segment working with radium and not having a likelihood greater than that of the normal population for the incidence of the same set of diseases. Keep this and compare with A.

Both A and E weaken the argument. But E compares directly with a similar segment of workers i.e. chemists and lab workers hence this statement weakens the argument better than A by attacking the second assumption. Hence E is the answer.

himadeepm · Answer

Only option E doesn't strengthen the reasoning.It says that chemists din't have more incidence of ailments mentioned than that of general population.This reasoning doesn't the conclusion that people should bury the devices as incidence of mentioned ailments is more for the people exposed to the luminous paint than that of general population

ArupRS · Answer

Can some one please explain the issue with E?

MayankMM · Answer

What does "LEAST strengthens" mean.
Does it mean a Weakener Or Does it mean Strengthen but to a very small extent. I think each one has its own definition and for that reason I answered A.

E is a weakener and that's why I eliminated it

arnisht · Answer

As per my understanding, there is a problem with point E as compared to A:

In A, incidences of symptoms in the general public are being compared to factory workers, and in E they are being compared to chemists and laboratory workers. Now it can be easily assumed that chemists and laboratory workers since they know what they are dealing with, used protective equipment before working with Radium.
But with factory workers, such protection wasn't probably made available either because they were not aware or maybe the contents of the paint were discovered later.

In that case if still factory workers had same symptoms as general public, it may mean that there was something else that led to symptoms of radioactive exposure, and burying watches may not solve the purpose. Which makes A a better weakener than E.

Please let me know where am I going wrong.

Showmeyaa · Answer

In the 1920s, surveys of factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint found an alarming incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer. This paint contained radium, a radioactive element. As a result, the industrial use of radioactive luminous paint was completely stopped by 1960. However, radium stays active for hundreds of years. Therefore, those watch-collectors who own watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 should either bury these watches in the ground or store them in thick lead boxes to protect themselves and the people around them from anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer.

Which one of the following, if true, LEAST strengthens the argument above?

A: The surveys also found that the incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer among factory workers who painted watch dials with non-luminous paint was not greater than that among the general population. -  It says the incidence of anemia with workers who used non-luminous paint was not greater than the general population. If at all, this strengthens the argument. In addition, we are not concerned about workers using non-luminous paint -> Incorrect 
B: The surveys also found that factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint, the extent of their health problems was directly proportional to the cumulative number of hours for which they had worked with luminous paint till then.
C: Barriers of lead or earth provide adequate protection to human beings from harmful radioactive substances.
D: People who wear watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 for more than a decade have an alarming incidence of anemia.
E: Most chemists and laboratory workers who worked with radium for more than a year in the first decade after its discovery in 1898 did not have, for the rest of their lives, a greater incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer than the general population.

tejasvkalra · Answer

A helps in strengthening the argument by saying that it wasn't paint in general that caused the problems...but the luminous paint

Ayushmaan01 · Answer

You made the same mistake I did, I used the same pre-thinking that you have used. You missed 'non luminous paint' in option (A).

unraveled · Answer

In the 1920s, surveys of factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint found an alarming incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer. This paint contained radium, a radioactive element. As a result, the industrial use of radioactive luminous paint was completely stopped by 1960. However, radium stays active for hundreds of years. Therefore, those watch-collectors who own watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 should either bury these watches in the ground or store them in thick lead boxes to protect themselves and the people around them from anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer.

Which one of the following, if true, LEAST strengthens the argument above?

A: The surveys also found that the  incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer  among factory workers who painted watch dials with non-luminous paint was  not greater than that among the general population .
B: The surveys also found that factory workers who painted watch dials with luminous paint, the  extent of their health problems was directly proportional to the cumulative number of hours  for which they had  worked with luminous paint  till then.
C: Barriers of lead or earth  provide adequate protection  to human beings from harmful radioactive substances.
D: People who wear watches that have luminous dials and were made before 1960 for more than a decade  have an alarming incidence of anemia .
E: Most chemists and laboratory workers who worked with radium for more than a year in the first decade after its discovery in 1898  did not have , for the rest of their lives,  a greater incidence of anemia, loss of teeth, bone fractures and death from cancer than  the general population.
LEAST Strengthen may mean as follows:
1. Weakens the argument/conclusion
2. Stays neutral towards the argument/conclusion by discussing irrelevant aspects
3. Strengthens and Weakens both depending on the scenarios, in which case only only strengthening aspect needs to be taken into account. This one's trick though
4. Strengthens but relatively in smaller degree compared to other choices

In this only A and E provide reasonably good arguments.
E wins since it changes the scope of the passage. It takes into account 1898-1908 instead of 1920s. Even though if this is not enough of an aspect to give heed to, it does strengthens the passage - incidences are less.

Answer E.

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.

In the 1920s, surveys of factory workers

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

In the 1920s, surveys of factory workers

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