BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Metal workers

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

Metal workers

by akhpad » Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:47 pm
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?
Last edited by akhpad on Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:00 am
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:760

by scorpionz » Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:16 pm
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?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:51 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by brijesh » Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:32 pm
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
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:22 am
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.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:26 am
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.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Sat Aug 21, 2010 3:25 am
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
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:29 pm
IMO D

I am more convinced with D.


Also the language is confusing.
There is no contrast as stated by the argument.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:30 am
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.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:59 am
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.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:34 am
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.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:46 am
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.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 am
Location: Mumbai
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:710

by ankurmit » Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:59 pm
Confused between D and E.

D seems more convincing than E
--------
Ankur mittal
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1