Critical Reasoning

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.

I think E is totally weaken the argument, because it is equipment failure rather than drinking problems lead to the accident.. Why not E, why C??? Pls explain..and houw about A,B and D? why are they wrong?

The conclusion is ' to ensure a SAFE workplace stay away from people with drinking problems'

To weaken this, you would want to look for an option where people with DRINKING problem would not reveal their problem and thus enter the workplace and cause accidents. Only C mentions something similar.

D is a tricky choice, but it does not say stress of safety-sensitive jobs cause people to drink, it says it just exacerbates problems.

A,B and E does not concern the conclusion at all

OA is C.

Below is the explanation by "testluv" GMAT expert:


The correct answer is definitely choice C, as many have pointed out.

Choice C tells us that current workers may actually have a (current) drinking problem. So, by replacing them with those who have been treated for their drinking problem, we may actually decrease the risk of accidents, thereby weakening the argument.

That some companies' policy is to put drinkers in residential treatment is clealy irrelelvant. Thus, choice A is incorrect.

Because the argument was about reducing the risk of accident through a certain policy, that some accidents are attributable to an alternative explanation is irrelevant. Thus, choice B is incorrect.

We don't care that safety-sensiive job holders are more likely to become drinkers. We care about whether the policy against hiring them will lead to a reduction in the risk of accident. Thus, choice D is incorrect.

Choice E is wrong for the same reason that choice B is wrong: that some accidents are attributable to an alternative explanation is irrelevant.