Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do....
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by establishing that drinking problems lead to more workplace accidents. Then it shows that even treated people have higher relapse rates. Finally, it concludes that employers should ban all previously treated people from safety jobs to reduce accident risk.
Main Conclusion:
Employers should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding safety-sensitive jobs.
Logical Structure:
The conclusion relies on two key premises: (1) drinking problems increase accidents and (2) treated people still have higher relapse risk. The argument assumes that completely excluding this group is the best way to minimize accident risk, without considering other factors like the effectiveness of treatment or alternative safety measures.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the conclusion that employers should bar anyone who has ever been treated for drinking problems from safety-sensitive jobs
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about comparative risk levels (treated people vs general population) and recommends a blanket hiring ban. The precision focuses on 'anyone who has ever been treated' and 'should bar' - these are absolute terms that create vulnerabilities
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that show the recommended policy (banning all previously treated people) might actually be counterproductive or based on flawed reasoning. We can attack the logic by showing: 1) Alternative explanations for the accident correlation, 2) Negative consequences of the proposed ban, or 3) Information that makes the ban seem disproportionate to the actual risk
This describes supportive company policies for workers seeking treatment, but doesn't challenge the argument's main conclusion. The argument could still maintain that even with good treatment programs, previously treated workers should be banned from safety-sensitive positions due to higher relapse risk. This doesn't weaken the core reasoning.
This shifts focus to accidents caused by non-safety-sensitive employees. However, the argument specifically targets safety-sensitive jobs and the elevated risk from drinking problems in those positions. Even if other employees also cause accidents, this doesn't undermine the argument's logic about reducing risk in safety-sensitive roles.
This reveals a critical flaw in the proposed policy. If employers ban anyone who has been treated for drinking problems, workers will avoid seeking treatment to protect their jobs. This means the workplace ends up with workers who have active, untreated drinking problems rather than workers who sought help. The policy backfires by creating worse conditions than it aimed to prevent, directly undermining the argument's goal of reducing accident risk.
While this explains why safety-sensitive workers might develop drinking problems, it doesn't weaken the argument's conclusion about banning previously treated workers. The argument could acknowledge this stress factor while still maintaining that workers with treatment history pose higher relapse risk and should be excluded.
This mentions equipment failure as an accident cause, but doesn't address the human factor argument. Even if some accidents stem from equipment issues, the argument focuses specifically on reducing accidents caused by drinking problems. This doesn't challenge the logic of excluding higher-risk workers from safety-sensitive positions.