Critical Reasoning

Ill go with C.
B talks about workers not involved in safety-sensitive jobs

I was confused between C and D


Conclusion - drinking problem increases risk for safety jobs

My explanation for D

If saftey sensitive jobs itself cause the drinking problem then it will weaken the conclusion

C explanation given by you guys also fit but nothing about permanent losing the Job is metioned in argument. It is extreme scope shift and hence eliminated it.

I think the OA - C is wrong.

Please let me know why D can be wrong

gg1 wrote:IMO B

If many accidents result due to error by the employees not holding safety certi. so even if the employer bars anybody with drinking problem from holding saftey certificate will not reduce the risk of accidents .

C is not correct bcoz there is no mention of losing jobs .

I too opted for C. can you please explain how mentioning losing jobs makes C out of scope.

support Delhi boy... my take.. B

showbu wrote: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.

IMO B is out of scope rather than C.
Argument's talking about the scope of only safety-sensitive jobs, and B explicitly shifts that scope to people who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs

C is correct

IMO (C) because if the employees hide their drinking problem, then there is no way for the factory managers/owners to know about it and they may mistakenly appoint such persons on the safety-sensitive job.

Guys, what is wrong with D. It does say that it is not just drinking problem but any problem that can be an issue.

The conclusion is that the employer should bar the employee from job.

A is not wrong, giving the employees treatment will possibly bring them back to work again.

However, it is an extreme answer in that weeks of paid leave .. ( hell, I would say I had a drinking problem if my employer would give me that kind of a benefit )

B is out of scope, as it is referring to employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs, so it does not matter if they error to the argument

C makes sense, because if you conceal the problem the employer will not know.

D is introducing another factor to strengthen the argument, other personal problems

E is not in scope for the argument, as employee error is not mentioned.

delhiboy1979 wrote:Guys, what is wrong with D. It does say that it is not just drinking problem but any problem that can be an issue.

The problem with D is that it exacerbates those personal problems which already exist. Otherwise there is no ground for exacerbation. Thus drinking problem might exist first, for stress take an action on it, and therefore elimination of stress doesn't diminish drinking problem.

Experts please share your thoughts on this toughie....

please explain options D, C and B with reasons...

Many thanks!

Received a PM.

What's the source of this question?

So I see people have narrowed it down to B, C or D and that's why I'm only going to discuss these three options.

The argument goes as follows:
- accidents are more frequent when people in the safety business have drinking problems
- people who've had drinking problems stand a greater chance of have drinking problems in the future
- in order to reduce the risk of accidents, employers must not hire anyone who has been treated for drinking issues

B is definitely out because it does not touch on the issue of "people with drinking problems". The argument specifically discusses reducing risk of accidents as a result of having fewer employees with a history of alcohol abuse. In this respect, B is somewhat like A: it's an issue that's parallel to the argument itself.

OK so C presents an issue with such an unforgiving policy, i.e. not hiring anyone who's had treatment: this creates an incentive for people with issues to lie. If such a policy were not in place, then people might seek treatment and therefore fewer people with drinking problems will be on the job. However, if you make it clear that anyone who's been treated before is not welcome, such a drastic measure might discourage some from seeking help, which means that they'll do anything in their power to avoid being detected. In other words, such a policy (of not hiring someone who's received help in the past) might backfire because people now have an added incentive to lie about their condition. So C is a good option (not a perfect one).

Now D is one of my favorite options because it presents a different cause for something. It's the jobs themselves that are making people more likely to have drinking problems. So the idea you could derive from this option is that no matter what you do, you won't be able to eliminate the risk of accidents completely, since the job in itself is stressful and causes people to drink. However, you'd be missing a very subtle note here: the phrase that makes this option less convincing is "exacerbate problems that they may have". If you don't have drinking problems to begin with, then you won't necessarily develop them later. If you already do, then it get even worse and the potential for issues later on greatly increases. D actually supports the passage.

If this were a real life exam, I would have picked D with the blink of an eye. I would have been wrong though...

Thankyou for the explanations of all the options Dana...

However, I am still not able to make out how D is supporting the argument...

Please explain in more details

Many thanks!

OK, I'll give it another shot... So the argument you're supposed to demolish is: employers should not hire people who've had drinking problems in the past because this increases the risk of accidents.

The issue with D is that it strengthens this argument because we're talking about people who already have certain problems: working in a safety-sensitive position actually makes the drinking problem worse ("exacerbate"), which would presumably increase the risk of accidents.

Got this...Thankyou Dana...