Critical Reasoning

Source: Veritas Prep

Metal workers for companies that have never before provided safety training will start to experience 25% fewer accidents per year after participating in a standardized safety training program. This percentage can be considerably increased when, in conjunction with training programs, local metalworkers' unions are able to achieve more realistic deadlines from employers.

Which of the following hypotheses best explains the contrast described above?

A: Employers who set unrealistic deadlines are unlikely to provide safety training for metal workers on staff.
B: The number of accidents per employee-hour is much higher when the work force is non-unionized.
C: The methods described in safety training programs are only effective when metal workers do their jobs at a certain speed.
D: When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines, metal workers who have participated in a safety training program are much less likely to have an accident than those who have not.
E: A substantial percentage of accidents that befall metal workers are the result of efforts to increase the speed of production.

OA: E

I am confused over D and E.

Training Program: 25% fewer accidents per year
More realistic deadlines: This percentage can be considerably increased

Which of these are more important?

I would go with 'E'..

My interpretation of D is that only after realistic deadlines have been achieved, the accident rate amongst workers who have undergone the training will be lesser than the rate for those who have not undergone the training. Or in other words, the training will be effective only if realistic deadlines are achieved.
However the question stem clearly tells us that the accident rate is certainly going to drop by 25% and this is not going to be dependent on whether there is any change in deadlines.

What we are looking for is how achieving realistic deadlines will increase this rate above 25%...

E answers this by saying that a substantial % of accidents occur while trying to increase production i.e. when workers are made to work on tight or unrealistic deadlines. Hence if the deadlines are more realistic, the % of accidents will decrease. This decrease combined with the safety training will increase the % drop substantially beyond 25%...

What's the OA?

akhp77 wrote:Source: Veritas Prep

Metal workers for companies that have never before provided safety training will start to experience 25% fewer accidents per year after participating in a standardized safety training program. This percentage can be considerably increased when, in conjunction with training programs, local metalworkers' unions are able to achieve more realistic deadlines from employers.

Which of the following ?

A: Employers who set unrealistic deadlines are unlikely to provide safety training for metal workers on staff.
B: The number of accidents per employee-hour is much higher when the work force is non-unionized.
C: The methods described in safety training programs are only effective when metal workers do their jobs at a certain speed.
D: When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines, metal workers who have participated in a safety training program are much less likely to have an accident than those who have not.
E: A substantial percentage of accidents that befall metal workers are the result of efforts to increase the speed of production.

I am confused over D and E.

Training Program: 25% fewer accidents per year
More realistic deadlines: This percentage can be considerably increased

Which of these are more important?

Hi!

Here I am confuse with the Q statement ( hypotheses best explains the contrast described above), specially the word contrast here.

Here, there is no comparision of the two methods , they complement each other (training and realistic deadlines)

training reduces the accident from 100 (say) to 75

and with realistic deadlines; from 75, it may further reduce to ....70, 60...etc

if dedlins are relaxed the accident reduces.

If the Q is which hypotheses best explains the argument ---the answer is then E

Plz explain some one...

....thank you in advance

akhp77 wrote:Source: Veritas Prep

Metal workers for companies that have never before provided safety training will start to experience 25% fewer accidents per year after participating in a standardized safety training program. This percentage can be considerably increased when, in conjunction with training programs, local metalworkers' unions are able to achieve more realistic deadlines from employers.

Which of the following hypotheses best explains the contrast described above?

A: Employers who set unrealistic deadlines are unlikely to provide safety training for metal workers on staff.
B: The number of accidents per employee-hour is much higher when the work force is non-unionized.
C: The methods described in safety training programs are only effective when metal workers do their jobs at a certain speed.
D: When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines, metal workers who have participated in a safety training program are much less likely to have an accident than those who have not.
E: A substantial percentage of accidents that befall metal workers are the result of efforts to increase the speed of production.

I am confused over D and E.

Training Program: 25% fewer accidents per year
More realistic deadlines: This percentage can be considerably increased

Which of these are more important?

IMO D.

We have to explain both the components of the argument: Training and deadlines.
Negotiate is the word that is important.

scorpionz wrote: My interpretation of D is that only after realistic deadlines have been achieved, the accident rate amongst workers who have undergone the training will be lesser than the rate for those who have not undergone the training. Or in other words, the training will be effective only if realistic deadlines are achieved.
However the question stem clearly tells us that the accident rate is certainly going to drop by 25% and this is not going to be dependent on whether there is any change in deadlines.
What's the OA?

Your explanation looks good. D is a conditional statement 'When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines."

However, both D and E are very confusing.

FightWithGMAT wrote:

akhp77 wrote:Source: Veritas Prep

Metal workers for companies that have never before provided safety training will start to experience 25% fewer accidents per year after participating in a standardized safety training program. This percentage can be considerably increased when, in conjunction with training programs, local metalworkers' unions are able to achieve more realistic deadlines from employers.

Which of the following hypotheses best explains the contrast described above?

A: Employers who set unrealistic deadlines are unlikely to provide safety training for metal workers on staff.
B: The number of accidents per employee-hour is much higher when the work force is non-unionized.
C: The methods described in safety training programs are only effective when metal workers do their jobs at a certain speed.
D: When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines, metal workers who have participated in a safety training program are much less likely to have an accident than those who have not.
E: A substantial percentage of accidents that befall metal workers are the result of efforts to increase the speed of production.

I am confused over D and E.

Training Program: 25% fewer accidents per year
More realistic deadlines: This percentage can be considerably increased

Which of these are more important?

IMO D.

We have to explain both the components of the argument: Training and deadlines.
Negotiate is the word that is important.

I missed the word FEWER.

In the first reading I read that as more.

Yes Ans is E

IMO D

I am more convinced with D.


Also the language is confusing.
There is no contrast as stated by the argument.

paes wrote:IMO D

I am more convinced with D.


Also the language is confusing.
There is no contrast as stated by the argument.

I agree that there is no contrast to explain.

But if we see carefully, D seems more to be a combined rephrase of the premises.

only subtle contrast I see is that the combination of training and realistic target leads to a lower % of accidents. E makes a point to explain this.

In absence of realistic target, employees suffer more accidents. I am not sure how it explains the training part.

IMO E

After reading so many times, now I am convinced to discard D.

[1] When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines, metal workers who have participated in a safety training program are much less likely to have an accident than those who have not.

Suppose D is like :

[2] When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines, metal workers who have participated in a safety training program are much less likely to have an accident than before [ without realistic deadlines ]

See the difference in 1 and 2.
If D had been 2, then it also would have been an answer choice.

paes wrote:IMO E

After reading so many times, now I am convinced to discard D.

[1] When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines, metal workers who have participated in a safety training program are much less likely to have an accident than those who have not.

Suppose D is like :

[2] When unions negotiate more realistic deadlines, metal workers who have participated in a safety training program are much less likely to have an accident than before [ without realistic deadlines ]

See the difference in 1 and 2.
If D had been 2, then it also would have been an answer choice.

Your [2] version of the sentence simply says that:
more realistic target decreases the accidents happen to people who have been trained.

This is nothing but the rephrase of the premises.

More careful reading leads us to a very subtle trap of GMAT.

The contrast this question asks to explain contains "in conjunction to safety training", so the question demands us to explain the contrast by taking training into consideration. We simply cannot ignore training while explaining the contrast. D does so.

FightWithGMAT@

Again you are not catching the key difference here.
Let me try again.

Suppose total 100 epmloyee : 25 trained, 75 un-trained

D says : <when....> 25 have less probability of accident than 75 have.

means :
P1 (for 25trained) -> 0.2
P2 (for 75 untrained) --> 0.5 [ according to D : so P1<P2 ]

my version of D says : <when...> 25 have less probablity now-(P3) than their previous probability(P1).

e.g. P3 (for same 25 now) --> 0.1
It means that probability is decreased now.

Does it make sense for you?

Clearly 1st given case can't explain the argument.

Confused between D and E.

D seems more convincing than E