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.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
02 Apr 2020, 01:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
63% (02:17) correct
37%
(02:18)
wrong
based on 470
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
Krishh9119
Joined: 10 Mar 2017
Last visit: 25 Apr 2021
Posts: 42
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 191
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: W.P. Carey '23
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Updated on: 24 Apr 2020, 14:56
Originally posted by Krishh9119 on 02 Apr 2020, 04:22.
Last edited by Krishh9119 on 24 Apr 2020, 14:56, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by Krishh9119 on 24 Apr 2020, 14:56, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion: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.
Premise: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
We need to find all the options that weaken the argument and remove them as this is an EXCEPT question:
(A) Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearings loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
Clear Weakener. People can file these claims only after leaving the job. It's not to gain benefits they did not deserve.
(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
Again a weakener. The employees first filed injury claims and then they were dismissed. They are not to gain any benefits they did not deserve.
(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
Not able to judge it. Let me keep it.
(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.
Solid Weakener.This option tells us that they are less likely to even apply for claims.
(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 is a genuine reason and Weakener.
The best thing to look in all choices is only 'option C' does not speak about connection between Job loss and compensation.
After elimination we are left with C.
C is our answer.
Premise: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
We need to find all the options that weaken the argument and remove them as this is an EXCEPT question:
(A) Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearings loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
Clear Weakener. People can file these claims only after leaving the job. It's not to gain benefits they did not deserve.
(B) In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
Again a weakener. The employees first filed injury claims and then they were dismissed. They are not to gain any benefits they did not deserve.
(C) Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
Not able to judge it. Let me keep it.
(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.
Solid Weakener.This option tells us that they are less likely to even apply for claims.
(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 is a genuine reason and Weakener.
The best thing to look in all choices is only 'option C' does not speak about connection between Job loss and compensation.
After elimination we are left with C.
C is our answer.
02 Apr 2020, 05:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Ans: C
Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
This choice is not weakening the argument. It says that Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury. and the argument says that there is an increase in the claims after te company got closed. So, this choice is actually supporting the argument.
Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
This choice is not weakening the argument. It says that Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury. and the argument says that there is an increase in the claims after te company got closed. So, this choice is actually supporting the argument.
