Option A - INCORRECT.
This is a good idea and it shows how much companies care about the welfare of their employees. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave, however, this idea of giving such employee a less safety- sensitive job will eradicate Accidents that will occur in the working environment.

Option B - INCORRECT.
This claim of many accidents in the workplace that occurred as a result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs are minor accident and not major ones that can cost the company more security checking.

Option C - CORRECT.
This option has seriously undermine the argument above. If the claim of baring workers who are found guilty of drinking problems is implied, most workers who will permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment for a drinking problem would try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible rather than seeking for treatment, and this may cause more harm than good to both the workers and the organization. Therefore, barring of anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job should not be too strict on them rather they should be put in areas that will require them of less or no safety precautions and also security checks should be done on them by the company.

Option D - INCORRECT.
Companies should understand the fact that, People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems, that is why the concluding part of ''bar'' of such worker found guilty of drinking problems is not the best solution to eradicate organisation accident.

Option E - INCORRECT.
Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error, even though the machines reply back what is being inputted by human request.