Occupational safety advocate: Logging is one of the most dangerous

Question

Occupational safety advocate: Logging is one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States. A company has developed a chainsaw that will instantly shut off if there is kickback of the chain, which studies have shown to be the most common cause of chainsaw injuries. The logging industry should adopt this new chainsaw as standard equipment in order to prevent most of the logging-related deaths that occur each year.

Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the occupational safety advocate’s argument?

(A) Loggers are sometimes killed by problems with chainsaws other than the kickback of the chain.

(B) Injuries from falling trees cause the vast majority of deaths in the logging industry.

(C) The new chainsaw is inexpensive and easy to learn how to use.

(D) There are other, equally safe chainsaws available, but the logging industry has not adopted them.

(E) The chainsaw manufacturer’s claims about its product are supported by a study conducted by a government agency.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

BongBideshini · Answer

See the subtle shift in the scope. Studies  have shown "kickback of the chain" to be the most common cause of chainsaw i njuries,  whereas the conclusion says the plan will lead to preventing most of the logging-related  deaths  that occur each year. The author assumes that the most common  cause of injuries  causes the most  deaths.  Answer B is along the line. 
  Ans B

vasu1104 · Answer

logging- most dangerous occupation in usa.
new chainsaw being developed by company.
with this new machine, whenever there is kickback of chain, chainsaw will instantly shut off.
studies - kickback of chain - most common cause of chainsaw injuries.

conclusion = adopt this new machine in order to prevent logging related death.

premise is about injuries happening from kickback of chains and conclusion is about preventing death by using new machine.

so he/she assumes that whenever there is injuries happening because of chain kickback, it leads to death in near future. so now when we have new machine that prevents the injuries, we should adopt this one so that we can avoid injuries and hence death..

A then this actually strengthen the claim of using the new machine. there are other problems with existing machine then definitely they should switch to the new one. reject.
B so something else is cause of majority of death. then they should address that cause first instead of coming up with new machine. may be machine is fine but what about the other factor that cause that. so this does enough to weaken the conclusion. keep.
C then they should definitely buy it as now they have more reason to buy it. but is this how we are going to weaken it. hell no. out.
D then they might have lost their mind. it's high time to change the machine now. irrelevant here. dump.
E good strategy to bring gov as verifier. but its not going to help us anyway. out.

option B

Sidway · Answer

Summarizing the question - New chainsaw shuts down -> kickback of chain. 
Kickback -> most common cause of injuries.
Author recommends therefore using this saw -> prevent the most amount of logging deaths

To prove: Weaken link of usage of new saw -> most decrease of logging deaths.

(A) Loggers are sometimes killed by problems with chainsaws other than the kickback of the chain.
Sometimes something else -> death in logging.
This doesnt weaken the fact that kickbacks -> cause most amount of injuries (and presumably deaths)
 REJECT

(B) Injuries from falling trees cause the vast majority of deaths in the logging industry.
Falling trees -> most amount of deaths
Kickbacks -> most amount of injuries.
We see a difference in distinction in injuries and deaths. This shows that kickbacks don't cause the most amount of deaths therefore usage of the new saws won't reduce most amount of deaths
 ACCEPT

(C) The new chainsaw is inexpensive and easy to learn how to use.
Chainsaw being easy strengthens recommendation.
We want to weaken link of usage of new saw -> most decrease of logging deaths.
 REJECT

(D) There are other, equally safe chainsaws available, but the logging industry has not adopted them.
Other chainsaws may exist but will the current chainsaw suit our needs? We don't know.
We want to weaken link of usage of new saw -> most decrease of logging deaths.
 REJECT

(E) The chainsaw manufacturer’s claims about its product are supported by a study conducted by a government agency.
This strengthens the claim.
We want to weaken link of usage of new saw -> most decrease of logging deaths.
 REJECT

--------------- 
 Sid B - 99th percentile Perfect Verbal GMAT Coach. 
 Book a call   here

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE 
The word “weakens” in the question stem tells you this is a Weaken question.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS 
The argument you’re asked to weaken claims that the logging industry should adopt a new chainsaw to prevent most of the logging-related deaths each year. The author’s evidence is that this chainsaw shuts off if there is a kickback, thus preventing injuries. The author assumes that chainsaw injuries cause the majority of logging-related deaths.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER 
The word “should” means this conclusion is a proposal, so think about common problems with proposals on the GMAT. The author must assume that the proposed solution to the problem will work. However, if at least half of deaths in the logging industry are caused by something other than chainsaws, then greater chainsaw safety won’t eliminate most logging industry deaths. Look in the choices for evidence that most deaths are not chainsaw related.

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES 
 (B) is a match for the prediction and is correct.  If most deaths are caused by falling trees, not chainsaws, then safer chainsaws won’t prevent the majority of deaths. Just the fact that fatal injuries are sometimes caused by something other than kickbacks isn’t enough to say that the new chainsaw will not prevent most deaths. It might be that 99% of logging fatalities are the result of chainsaw kickbacks, in which case the argument is still valid. If anything, (C) might strengthen the argument. If the new chainsaw is cheap and easy to use, the industry might be more willing to embrace it, and then chainsaw injuries would decrease. Evenso, this statement fails to connect chainsaw injuries to logging deaths. (D) is irrelevant, as the argument is not about any chainsaw other than the new one. And finally, (E) is similar to (C) in that it potentially strengthens the argument for adopting the chainsaw but still does not show that chainsaws cause deaths among loggers.

Occupational safety advocate: Logging is one of the most dangerous

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

Occupational safety advocate: Logging is one of the most dangerous

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