Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower back

Question

Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend long hours sitting is higher than that among people who regularly do physical work of type known to place heavy stress on lower back. This shows that office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote workers' health

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning above?

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning above?

(A) When they are at home, labours ans office workers tend to spend similar amounts of time sitting.

(B) Insurance companies tend to dislike selling policies to companies whose workers often claim to have back pain.

(C) People who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stress on the lower back are encouraged to use techniques that reduce degree of stress involved.

(D) Most of lower back injuries that office workers suffer occur while they are on the job.

(E) Consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways to prevent or recover from lower back injuries.

thakurarun85 · Accepted Answer

Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend long hours sitting is higher than that among people who regularly do physical work of type known to place heavy stress on lower back. This shows that office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote workers' health

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning above?

Sitting long hours=> more incidences 
physical work=>less incidence although more lower back stress. 
Hence chairs are bad in design

We need to tell that the trend comparison is not because of bad designs. Prove that the injuries are not increase in office worker, rather decrease in those who do physical work.

(A) When they are at home, labours ans office workers tend to spend similar amounts of time sitting.
This has nothing to do with incidents at work.

(B) Insurance companies tend to dislike selling policies to companies whose workers often claim to have back pain.
Out of scope

(C) People who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stress on the lower back are encouraged to use techniques that reduce degree of stress involved.
This says that the stress is reduced but how this will translate into the design being bad or not bad? however lets keep it.

(D) Most of lower back injuries that office workers suffer occur while they are on the job.
The injuries can happen because of multiple reasons.

(E) Consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways to prevent or recover from lower back injuries.
This help with our intended weakening. In fact better then C also.

Correct me if I am wrong.

kkarmakar · Answer

What is the reasoning? Please explain. I chose C.

Posted from my mobile device

Sid2011 · Answer

I think there should've been a choice better than option E here.

Here's my take on Option E: How did we determine that the office workers are not exercising consistently(is it because of the Long work hours?) and how does it undermine the reasoning that the equipment/chairs are designed poorly?

harshpathak96 · Answer

I ruled out E because I felt it was out of scope. Please provide an explanation for E.  GMATNinja   Bunuel

thanks in advance!

ayushsid · Answer

"most undermines" is the keyword here. I got this wrong too :/

(c) people are encouraged 
vs 
(e) physical exercise is already consistent

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend long hours sitting is higher than that among people who regularly do physical work of type known to place heavy stress on lower back. This shows that office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote workers' health

Sitting long hours=> more incidences
physical work=>less incidence although more lower back stress.
Hence chairs are bad in design

We need to tell that the trend comparison is not because of bad designs. Prove that the injuries are not increase in office worker, rather decrease in those who do physical work.

(A) When they are at home, labours ans office workers tend to spend similar amounts of time sitting.
This has nothing to do with incidents at work.

(B) Insurance companies tend to dislike selling policies to companies whose workers often claim to have back pain.
Out of scope

(C) People who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stress on the lower back are encouraged to use techniques that reduce degree of stress involved.
This says that the stress is reduced but how this will translate into the design being bad or not bad? however lets keep it.

(D) Most of lower back injuries that office workers suffer occur while they are on the job.
The injuries can happen because of multiple reasons.

(E) Consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways to prevent or recover from lower back injuries.
This help with our intended weakening. In fact better then C also.

Correct me if I am wrong.

unraveled · Answer

Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend long hours sitting is higher than that among people who regularly do physical work of type known to place heavy stress on lower back. This shows that office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote workers' health

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning above?

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning above?

Highlighted text is the conclusion. 
Office equipment and furniture(A) ---> Workers' bad health(B)

In essence, the passage is saying that office workers have lower-back injuries due to long hours of sitting. Other people who do physical work that puts stress on lower back do have lower-back issues. However, the former cases are more than later.
And this is due to (A).

(A) When they are at home, labours ans office workers tend to spend similar amounts of time sitting. - WRONG. It diverts from actual facts and leads to irrelevant things i.e. sitting at home. It does so by using similar words and logic from the passage, and constructing them smartly.

(B) Insurance companies tend to dislike selling policies to companies whose workers often claim to have back pain. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(C) People who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stress on the lower back are encouraged to use techniques that reduce degree of stress involved.

Can we reject (C) on the logic that "encouraged to use techniques" doesn't mean that they actually use techniques so (C) looks like a half baked information and not much helpful for us?

(D) Most of lower back injuries that office workers suffer occur while they are on the job. - WRONG. Again irrelevant to known when injuries generally happen. Also, what is said here is evident from the passage.

(E) Consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways to prevent or recover from lower back injuries. - CORRECT. This does give a reason to us to believe that it is possible to prevent or recover from lower back injuries. Both categories of people have a reason behind getting rid of injuries but office workers problems become bigger not because of office equipment and furniture but because of this reason.

Answer E.

Riti01 · Answer

Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend long hours sitting is higher than that among people who regularly do physical work of type known to place heavy stress on lower back. This shows that office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote workers' health

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning above?

Conclusion : The office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote worker's health, because long hours of sitting leads to higher incidences of lower back injuries.

To question : Is it really the furniture or other reasons that lead to higher back injuries among office workers ? Why do those who take heavy stress on lower back not have injuries ? Is the latter doing something different ?

To undermine the reasoning, one needs to weaken the reasoning i.e. office furniture may not be the reason for the injuries but something else, such as those who are office goers don't perform much physical work or they already have underlining ailments which supplement back injuries.

Given the options, option E fits our reasoning. Keep it simple, you want to attack the reasoning fully and not half way through.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

(A) When they are at home, labours ans office workers tend to spend similar amounts of time sitting.
This may be the case however working hours happen throught the office and only a few hors in home therefore out

(B) Insurance companies tend to dislike selling policies to companies whose workers often claim to have back pain.
This is thoroughly out of context and doesn't have any impact

(C) People who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stress on the lower back are encouraged to use techniques that reduce degree of stress involved.
This doesn't address or have any relevance as of why employees are suffering from back pain therefore out 
'Devil trap beware'
 
(D) Most of lower back injuries that office workers suffer occur while they are on the job.
This lends strength to the argument

(E) Consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways to prevent or recover from lower back injuries.
This lends strength to weaken the fact that it's not because of the office design but rather the employess inability to look after themselves therefore our choice

Therefore IMO E

Basshead · Answer

I think both C and E both weaken the argument, but E is undoubtedly a stronger statement.

Looking at the two side by side:

C tells us that these people are   encouraged   to use techniques that reduce degree of stress involved. Do they actually end up using techniques that reduce the degree of stress? We can't say -- we would need to assume this is the case.    The more assumptions we need to make, the weaker the answer choice is.

E, on the other hand, tells us with certainty that consistent physical exercise   is one of the most effective ways   to prevent or recover from lower back injuries. There is no doubt here -- we're told  it is one of the most effective ways  to prevent or recover from lower back injuries.

E is the clear winner.

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   MartyMurray

(C) People who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stress on the lower back are encouraged to use techniques that reduce degree of stress involved.

Can we reject (C) on the logic that  "encouraged to use techniques"  doesn't mean that they actually use techniques so (C) looks like a half baked information and not much helpful for us?

MartyMurray · Answer

The correct answer to a Weaken question has only to  cast doubt  on the conclusion. So, a choice that provides "half baked" information could be correct because such information could cast doubt on the conclusion.

After all, if it  could  be the case that techniques that people are encouraged to use would make a key difference in a situation if used, then the fact that people are encouraged to use them could weaken the case for a conclusion about that situation, even if we aren't sure whether people do in fact use them. After all, in that case, we'd have reason to wonder whether the conclusion is actually correct since, for all we know, people are using the techniques and making a key difference such that the reasoning that supports the conclusion is broken.

So, it would probably be better to go a little farther with our reasoning to eliminate (C).

We could do so by considering the following.

Even if  people who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stress on the lower back do use techniques that "reduce" the degree of stress involved, they  still  presumably put more stress on their lower backs than people who spend long hours sitting.

So, regardless of whether such techniques are used, the comparison that supports the conclusion still holds. Thus, (C) has no material effect on the strength of the argument.

Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower back

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower back

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