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.

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

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

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.

Timer is missing on this one!

Fixed

Thank you sir

we can assume that worker goes to hospitals and don't report injury.

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.

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.