Jump to content
Urch Forums

Industrial accidents are more common


mehrak

Recommended Posts

 

Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do. Since, even after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely than other people to have drinking problems in the future, any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in

residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.

B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not

hold safety-sensitive jobs.

C. Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a

drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as

long as possible.

D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate

any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.

E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by

employee error.

OA:B

why not c?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was down to B & C, but thought C was a better answer.

 

Conclusion is that any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.

 

If such people (treated for a drinking prob from holding a safety-sensitive job) decide to conceal their prob, there is no way (at least for a while) for employer to find about it, thus seriously undermines the argument.

 

I'd like to have other ppl's inputs on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conclusion of the argument is the last senence which says that any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.

Any statement that weakens this conclusion, should be the correct answer. Now choice (C) says that it will be diffcult to identify those who want to conceal their problem and continue working. But the argument is silent on this aspect.

Also, even if some people try to conceal their problems, this should not act as an excuse for employers to continue with those having drinking problems because it would undermine the safety at jobs.

Choice (B) directly and more forcefully attacks the argument by claiming that the premise on which argument is based, itself is flawed, since erros by emplyees result in many (not occasional) accidents.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel C is the best among the answers even though it doesnt successfully undermine the argument.

 

IMO for sure C is not serving the pure intended purpose (undermine). It just states that it is difficult to catch the people who have drinking problems but better than B.

 

B is talking about another set of people. Author is concerned about the people who work for safety-sensitive jobs and have the drinking problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B actually changes the scope. The premise is that the accidents are more common when safety-sensitive jobs are held by worker with drinking habits than when held by worker without such habits.

 

C should be the correct answer. It clearlyu undermines by showing that such people will not disclose their such habits and will prolong any treatment, finally worsening the situation and number of accidents. Although C uses some extreme language 'would permanently loose their job' which is not representative of the argument, yet C undermines the conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel C is the best among the answers even though it doesnt successfully undermine the argument.

 

IMO for sure C is not serving the pure intended purpose (undermine). It just states that it is difficult to catch the people who have drinking problems but better than B.

 

B is talking about another set of people. Author is concerned about the people who work for safety-sensitive jobs and have the drinking problems.

 

I feel the answer should be B...

 

Agreed that B talks about another set of people but the argument is 'any employer trying to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.'

So if B is true the employer wont be able to reduce the risks of accident.

 

C says that employees with drinking problem would permanently ose job. This is no where stated in the argument. The further point C raises is based on this assumption which itself is not stated in passage further weaken the credibility of the option....

 

B seems to be the perfect option..

Please correct if my reasoning is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
i guess c should be the correct oa . i am agree that b is out of scope .

 

Can some one tell me whats wrong with D here .

 

I would go with D since it shows that drinking is not the problem and employers cannot reduce the accidents by firing those with drinking history...accidents wont reduce as stress is the real culprit...

 

Can some one tell me whats wrong with D here ?

 

Will appreciate response. I thought this is a classic case of reverse cause and effect.

 

-Thanks and Regards,

Girish Malik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

obviously D undermine argument by stating that stress is problem , not alcohol !

 

In C, proposal is just weakened, but it didn't undermine argument, because it can be small part of drinking workers, and reaction of few among them, this will not kill the idea, even if it is true that some of them will react contraproductively !

 

If D is, it will kill the idea by stating that shell game is the couse of wrong perception among the management of the company !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Yeah, I guess whether non safety sensitive jobs should be restricted is not even slightly the point in this argument.

And in C, it strongly questions the viability of the company's new approach to avoid hiring people with drinking problems since they reckon it could probably only discourage many applicants from having any related treastment so as to hide the fact that they're alchoholic.

Is there an official explanation for the answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...