Last visit was: 18 Jun 2024, 02:10 It is currently 18 Jun 2024, 02:10

Close

GRE Prep Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 07 Jun 2014
Posts: 4810
Own Kudos [?]: 10689 [20]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q167 V156
WE:Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Most Helpful Expert Reply
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 07 Jun 2014
Posts: 4810
Own Kudos [?]: 10689 [8]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q167 V156
WE:Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
General Discussion
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2016
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2017
Posts: 36
Own Kudos [?]: 17 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
what should I do to get access to all small duration tests
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 07 Jun 2014
Posts: 4810
Own Kudos [?]: 10689 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q167 V156
WE:Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
Expert Reply
tejalbharade wrote:
what should I do to get access to all small duration tests

Answer genuine posts here. After 30 posts you get automatic access to test.

Please dont spam.
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2020
Posts: 496
Own Kudos [?]: 340 [1]
Given Kudos: 299
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
I need another explanation for this answer please. I selected option B because conclusion is addressing the "conceal" part which is not discussed in option A

Originally posted by Farina on 16 May 2020, 13:02.
Last edited by Farina on 17 May 2020, 02:17, edited 1 time in total.
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28950
Own Kudos [?]: 33722 [1]
Given Kudos: 25365
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
Expert Reply
1
Bookmarks
In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace injuries has declined 16 percent in the last five years. However, perhaps part of the decline results from injuries going unreported: many employers have introduced safety-incentive programs, such as prize drawings for which only employees who have a perfect work-safety record are eligible. Since a workplace injury would disqualify an employee from such programs, some employees might be concealing injury, when it is feasible to do so.

Which of the following, if true in Gilavia, most strongly supports the proposed explanation?

A In the last five years, there has been no decline in the number of workplace injuries leading to immediate admission to a hospital emergency room.
B Employers generally have to pay financial compensation to employees who suffer work-related injuries.
C Many injuries that happen on the job are injuries that would be impossible to conceal and yet would not be severe enough to require any change to either the employee’s work schedule or the employee’s job responsibilities.
D A continuing shift in employment patterns has led to a decline in the percentage of the workforce that is employed in the dangerous occupations in which workplace injuries are likely.
E Employers who have instituted safety-incentive programs do not in general have a lower proportion of reported workplace injuries among their employees than do employers without such programs.


Basically the argument says that the injuries are under-reporting because otherwise, the business will not have its check. safety-incentive programs

We need a fact-check that says this is not true. The injuries are MORE in numbers than what is reported.

A say just this

there has been no decline in the number of workplace injuries leading to immediate admission to a hospital emergency room.

The ER for instance says there are 100 and we report 10 injuries. So what the argument is saying is false and A reinforce this argument

The other options are out of scope If you look at them you will notice most immediately

Hope this helps

Regards
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2020
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 73 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
1
The argument can be summarized as:

- The reason for the dropped around 16% of the reported injuries is that the "perfect work-safety program" established by some companies encourages workers to not report some injuries suffered in the work.

We need an option that strengthens the argument:

Option A says that the number of injuries requiring hospitalization has remained at the same value in the last years.

Since the number of hospitalizations is a percentage of the total injuries, this means that this total has also remained in the same value for the last years.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2021
Posts: 184
Own Kudos [?]: 175 [1]
Given Kudos: 425
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
1
Timer is missing on this one!
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28950
Own Kudos [?]: 33722 [0]
Given Kudos: 25365
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
Expert Reply
taskforce wrote:
Timer is missing on this one!


Fixed

Thank you sir
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2020
Posts: 440
Own Kudos [?]: 59 [0]
Given Kudos: 68
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
we can assume that worker goes to hospitals and don't report injury.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Posts: 24
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
i don't fully understand why the answer is A...if there has been no decline in the number of workplace injuries leading to hospital emergency it could be because the number of minor injuries that don't require hospitalization has decreased....and therefore overall it could be that injuries have decreased not because it is underreported right?

why is E incorrect?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Jan 2021
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 78 [2]
Given Kudos: 898
Send PM
In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
2
GJSKGJ wrote:
i don't fully understand why the answer is A...if there has been no decline in the number of workplace injuries leading to hospital emergency it could be because the number of minor injuries that don't require hospitalization has decreased....and therefore overall it could be that injuries have decreased not because it is underreported right?

why is E incorrect?


The argument is that because of the incentive program, workers are under-reporting their injuries.

I too thought E was the best choice because it shows that the results from the incentive program in Gilavia are an anomaly. However, just because there were different results from incentive program at workplaces not in Gilvia, it doesn't do much to prove that workers are intentionally hiding work injuries. Therefore, it is a trap answer because it looks like it's supporting evidence on the surface, but if u stop and use ur critical reasoning skills, u can determine that it isn't.

Why Choice A is correct has already been adequately explained, but to summarize, if there is evidence that there is no change to the number of people who were injured so badly at work that they had to go to the hospital, then maybe the total amount of workplace injuries didn't actually decrease, the less serious ones (i.e. injuries not serious enough to send someone to the hospital) might have just not been reported.

If we look at this like a math problem, we have:

Total Workplace Injuries = Serious + Non-Serious

TWI = S +NS

Let's choose numbers to make more sense of this information:

TWI = S +NS
100 = 50 + 50

Now, let's consider in the fact that Total Workplace Injuries decreased by 16%, but the Serious Injuries did not. Let p equal 1 -
(the percent decrease in Non-Serious Injuries):

.84 (100) = 50 + 50p

84 - 50 = 50p

34/50 = p = 0.68 or a 32% decrease in Non-Serious Injuries!

From this perspective, it definitely looks like there is something wrong with the data. It looks like workers might be under-reporting their Non-Serious Injuries, thus supporting the argument.
User avatar
SVP
SVP
Joined: 07 Jan 2021
Posts: 1528
Own Kudos [?]: 51 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In Gilavia, the number of reported workplace [#permalink]
Hello from the GRE Prep Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GRE Prep Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Prep Club for GRE Bot
[#permalink]
Moderators:
GRE Instructor
218 posts
GRE Instructor
1036 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne