TTgwd 30-19 -- C or D

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. GWD30-Q19:

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?

1. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
2. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
3. 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.
4. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
5. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.

C is ok but how about D?

Here is my thought:

drinking --> more accident in safety-sensitive jobs -- > if bar drinking ppl, will be less accident in safety-sensitive jobs

D: drinking and/or personal problems + stress -- > more accident in safety-sensitive jobs -- > if bar drinking ppl, may be not helpful if personal problems still often exist for majarity ppl, meaning maybe still a lot of accident in safety-sensitive jobs. Isnt this an alternative explaination to weaken the conclusion? 

Plz help,

I would pick C

D is talking something afterward the conclusion that is trying to reduce the risk by bar anyone who has been treated for drink problem.

D is saying that the work would make the drink problem, which is already existed, even worse.

However, the conclusion says zero-tolerant to drink problem. No one would gain the job if he has drink problem no matter when he or she got it on him-/herself.

How about this:

The conclusion is that:

If bar drinking ppl, accidents will be reduced.

D is wrong because:

people who cause accident = ppl with personal problem rather than drinking + ppl drinking

So if bar drinking ppl, even this approch does not help to reduce the number of "ppl with personal problem rather than drinking" but it should be helpful to reduce "ppl drinking", so accidents will be reduced. So D supports rather than weaken the conclusion. Hence, C is definitely better.

Any thought about this?