A sandhog claims that he has a list of thirty deceased workers who wor

Question

A sandhog claims that he has a list of thirty deceased workers who worked as a group on a tunnel that cut through a radon-intense area. He started his list after an oncologist reported that the incidences of cancer among sandhogs were five times greater than the incidence of cancer among other construction workers. The tunnel contractor states that its records show that no sandhogs working on the tunnel were exposed to more radiation than was safe.

If true, which of the following statements most damages the contractor’s claim?

(A) The medical records of the oncologist were accurate.

(B) All thirty of the deceased sandhogs died of radiation-related cancer.

(C) The contractor has denied requests to inspect its radiation records.

(D) Sandhogs contract illness at higherthan-normal rates.

(E) The remaining sandhogs that worked on the tunnel show no signs of illness.

genericUser · Answer

A sandhog claims that he has a list of thirty deceased workers who worked as a group on a tunnel that cut through a radon-intense area. He started his list after an oncologist reported that the incidences of cancer among sandhogs were five times greater than the incidence of cancer among other construction workers. The tunnel contractor states that its records show that no sandhogs working on the tunnel were exposed to more radiation than was safe.

If true, which of the following statements most damages the contractor’s claim?

sandhog: i have a list of 30 workers who died while working in a radon-int area
oncologist: cancer among sandhogs 5 times greater than other const workers
contractor: no sandhogs has been exposed to above threshold radiation

(A) The medical records of the oncologist were accurate.
This is an assumption, we are not looking for this

(B)  All thirty of the deceased sandhogs died of radiation-related cancer.
if they died from radiation-related cancer, maybe the radiation level was not below the threshold

(C) The contractor has denied requests to inspect its radiation records.
can damage, but not as (B)

(D) Sandhogs contract illness at higherthan-normal rates.
not determinant

(E) The remaining sandhogs that worked on the tunnel show no signs of illness.
out of scope

Feedback appreciated.

unraveled · Answer

B establishes, thereby eliminating any doubts, that the deaths happened due to radiation- related cancer. It is not upto the mark that one may think of but relatively it does its job well.
C has problems, one that the intention of contractor is questionable, therefore weakening contractors claim and two that contractor might be legally protected to not show the records. Most importantly we are not sure how C would help weaken the claim.

rajatyadav1994 · Answer

I answered E. Trying to understand if that choice is WRONG since:-

CAUSE - Radiation
EFFECT - death

Correct Ans Choice (B) confirms that effect indeed due to cause
Wrong Ans Choice (E) states that people outside scope of cause did not see effect, and hence, we cannot be using this to conclude anything within the context of this question?

Experts kindly help

Rakshajha · Answer

The correct answer would be option be because it weakens the statement or claim of the contactor.

J30 · Answer

Hey Rajat! 
Okay so E is actually doing the opposite of what is asked in the question. The question wants us to undermine what the contractor claimed...which is that all his workers are working within the acceptable range of radiation and that no one was exposed to more than what was safe (this is just an inference...not the exact stated sentence)

now we have to damage this claim...which means weaken it. In order to weaken it, we somehow have to prove that somehow, majority or the workers do indeed have cancer. 
B does this by stating that all the 30 deaths that happened were due to cancer which was related to the radiation they were exposed to. 
E on the other hand...infact strengthens the contractors claim by stating that other workers have not shown any signs of illness (it doenst talk about the 30 dead too)...so we dont really get anything form this which will help us weaken the claim made. hence this is rejected. 
Additionally, I think if you dont understand this option, looking at B and understanding that option should help you select it.

Hope this helps

PS workers here mean Sandhogs.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Can anyone help on how to choose B over C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi gullyboy09

We want to damage the contractor’s claim, that is, to cast doubt on their statement that  “no one was exposed to more than safe levels.”

(B) All thirty of the deceased sandhogs died of radiation-related cancer. 
This strengthens the link between the tunnel work (radon area) and radiation-induced cancer. If they all died of radiation-caused cancer, that suggests radiation exposure was high enough to cause cancer, which damages the claim  “no one was exposed to more than safe levels”  because if  “safe”  means medically safe, then safe exposure should not cause many radiation-specific cancers.

(C) The contractor has denied requests to inspect its radiation records. 
This raises suspicion about the truth of the records, but it’s about hiding data, not direct evidence of overexposure. Less direct damage to the factual claim.

Hence  (B)  is correct.

A sandhog claims that he has a list of thirty deceased workers who wor

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

A sandhog claims that he has a list of thirty deceased workers who wor

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