Critical Reasoning

B seems the best choice since if company O considered less types of accidents as job-related they would be missing out on the numbers of those not considered as job-related. Hence, report less number of accidents. B weakens the conclusion.

Overall, nice contemplative viewpoints mentioned in the responses above.

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote: At first glance, the argument seems solid. Same number of employees, same number of hours, yet records show that O has fewer job-related accidents than P. Clearly, O is the safer place - they have fewer accident reports, right?

Think - how could we weaken this argument? In order to do that, we need to show that O and P have the same actual number of accidents (=same probability of job-related accident, assuming same number of employees) DESPITE having reported fewer accidents in O. The only way to do this is if there's something wrong with the REPORTS.

Hi Geva,

Can you please respond to the following?

B explains that perfectly: If B is true, then it is possible that O has the same number of accidents overall, and is not safer for employees - they just don't consider them job-related, so they don't appear in the reports.

(B) "Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O."

I understand your point that Company O may have the same number of accidents as Company P but they are just not considering them "job-related accidents". I don't see the problem with this. How can we question the integrity of each company's definition without knowing what business they are in?

For example, inadvertently damaging a vehicle may be considered a job-related accident in a car dealership and may not be considered a job-related accident in a junkyard. The definition of what constitutes a "job-related accident" is specific to the type of business. Employees at different companies can have the exact same accident and have the accidents categorized differently. I think this is perfectly acceptable. The conclusion is only about the "the likelihood of employees having job-related accidents". It is not about "safety".

Doesn't (B) support the conclusion that "employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P". The fact that Company P has a broader definition of job-related accidents makes an employee of Company P more likely to have a job-related accident than an employee of Company O (all else being equal).

D is irrelevant, since the reports discuss overall number of accidents, not number of employees hurt by accidents. Therefore, we have to assume that the accidents that happened to the same employee would still be counted separately in the reports. If anything, D strengthens the notion that you O is indeed the safer place - as long as you're not the one operating the automatic wood-chipper, for instance.

(D) "Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident."

Conclusion: "Employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P".

Doesn't the conclusion literally mean that every employee at Company O is less likely to have a job-related accident than every employee at Company P. While I agree that the reports discuss the overall number of job-related accidents, the way the conclusion is worded seems to discuss the likelihood of job-related accidents at the individual employee level.

If the conclusion is intended to refer to the likelihood of job-related accidents at the Company level (and be consistent with the premises), shouldn't the conclusion include language referring to the average. For example, "On average, employees of Company O are less likely..." or "The average employee of Company O is less likely..."

The conclusion is not about which company is safer. It is only about the likelihood of employees having job-related accidents. In my opinion, (D) weakens the conclusion by showing that there exists some accident prone employees at Company O. This opens the possibility that Company P may have a less accident prone employee. This would weaken the conclusion that "Employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P".

What's wrong with this? Thanks...

rkanthilal wrote:

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote: At first glance, the argument seems solid. Same number of employees, same number of hours, yet records show that O has fewer job-related accidents than P. Clearly, O is the safer place - they have fewer accident reports, right?

Think - how could we weaken this argument? In order to do that, we need to show that O and P have the same actual number of accidents (=same probability of job-related accident, assuming same number of employees) DESPITE having reported fewer accidents in O. The only way to do this is if there's something wrong with the REPORTS.

Hi Geva,

Can you please respond to the following?

B explains that perfectly: If B is true, then it is possible that O has the same number of accidents overall, and is not safer for employees - they just don't consider them job-related, so they don't appear in the reports.

(B) "Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O."

I understand your point that Company O may have the same number of accidents as Company P but they are just not considering them "job-related accidents". I don't see the problem with this. How can we question the integrity of each company's definition without knowing what business they are in?

For example, inadvertently damaging a vehicle may be considered a job-related accident in a car dealership and may not be considered a job-related accident in a junkyard. The definition of what constitutes a "job-related accident" is specific to the type of business. Employees at different companies can have the exact same accident and have the accidents categorized differently. I think this is perfectly acceptable. The conclusion is only about the "the likelihood of employees having job-related accidents". It is not about "safety".

Doesn't (B) support the conclusion that "employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P". The fact that Company P has a broader definition of job-related accidents makes an employee of Company P more likely to have a job-related accident than an employee of Company O (all else being equal).

D is irrelevant, since the reports discuss overall number of accidents, not number of employees hurt by accidents. Therefore, we have to assume that the accidents that happened to the same employee would still be counted separately in the reports. If anything, D strengthens the notion that you O is indeed the safer place - as long as you're not the one operating the automatic wood-chipper, for instance.

(D) "Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident."

Conclusion: "Employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P".

Doesn't the conclusion literally mean that every employee at Company O is less likely to have a job-related accident than every employee at Company P. While I agree that the reports discuss the overall number of job-related accidents, the way the conclusion is worded seems to discuss the likelihood of job-related accidents at the individual employee level.

If the conclusion is intended to refer to the likelihood of job-related accidents at the Company level (and be consistent with the premises), shouldn't the conclusion include language referring to the average. For example, "On average, employees of Company O are less likely..." or "The average employee of Company O is less likely..."

The conclusion is not about which company is safer. It is only about the likelihood of employees having job-related accidents. In my opinion, (D) weakens the conclusion by showing that there exists some accident prone employees at Company O. This opens the possibility that Company P may have a less accident prone employee. This would weaken the conclusion that "Employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P".

What's wrong with this? Thanks...

I see what you mean on the first point, completly disagree on the second.

B may be open to debate. With the first sentence, the argument is trying to convey the point that the two companies share the same characteristics - the same baseline (number of employees, and number of working hours) - and in this way hint that the two companies should logically have the same number of accidents, setting up the paradox later on. You are right that this conclusion is not airtight - it is possible for two companies to have the same number of employees and the same number of working hours, yet have drastically different number of accidents depending on the business they're in (e.g. comparing an accounting firm with a offshore oil rig). I would still choose B, because that's the kind of logic I've seen tested in real GMAT questions - the difference between a REPORT of a situation and the ACTUAL situation.

D is not a weakening point at all. The conclusion is that employees of company O are less likely to have job-related accidents that employees of P. Interpreting this as "ALL of the employees of O are less likely that ALL of the employees of P" is taking the conclusion to an extreme it is not meant to. The words "on average" aren't stated either, but they're implied, based on the kind of data given - total number of accidents for total number of employees and work hours. So Some employees in O are more accident prone than some employees in P (also not really stated in D, which just says that several employees in O had more than one accident, without comparing to company P at all), but that's fine - I'm trying to weaken the contention that "generally speaking", "on average", "as a rule", employees in company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than P.

option B should be the answer... I think as compared to other answer choices, C weakens argument the most.

Off track:-rkanthilal -- Truly appreciate your deep thinking!

prepgmat09 wrote:Companies O and P each have the same number of employees who work the same number of hours per week. According to records maintained by each company, the employees of Company O had fewer job-related accidents last year than did the employees of Company P. Therefore, employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?

(A) The employees of Company P lost more time at work due to job-related accidents than did the employees of Company O.
(B) Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O.
(C) The employees of Company P were sick more often than were the employees of Company O.
(D) Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident.
(E) The majority of job-related accidents at Company O involved a single machine.

OA after discussion..

Hi DavidG@VeritasPrep / GMATGuruNY / [email protected]

How D doesn't weaken the Conclusion? Can you please explain this argument

Thanks
Nandish

Bumping for further discussion...