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 +
NSLet's choose numbers to make more sense of this information:
TWI =
S +
NS100 = 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 +
50p84 -
50 =
50p34/
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.