A recent study has found that, surprisingly, the risk of serious injuries to workers is higher in industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors than in industries that are not so monitored.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the surprising finding described above?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

Government safety inspectors not only monitor but also train employees of the inspected firms to follow safe practices.

Government safety inspectors do not have the authority to enforce safety regulations.

Only those industries with an inherently high risk of on-the-job injury are monitored by government safety inspectors.

Correct

Workers behave especially cautiously when they believe their performance is being monitored by government safety inspectors.

Some of the industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors have much lower rates of injuries than do other industries that are also so monitored.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Unlock the full explanation

Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.

Create free account Sign in

Comments

Sebastian4d ago

B is tempting because no enforcement sounds bad but it doesn't really connect to the injury rate difference. C is the only one that gives you a reason the monitored industries would already have more injuries.

LaraJun 16

easy one, C all day. reverse causation vibes

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can explain an apparent contradiction in a way that makes both facts true.

Common trap

Picking an option that explains one side of the paradox while making the other side false.