LR Drill Set 1, Question 3
Hasina: Our province has enacted new workplace standards(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(14 more words not shown)
- AMost people in(16 more words not shown)
- BRecently, public awareness(19 more words not shown)
- CMeasures are now(19 more words not shown)
- DSome of the(17 more words not shown)
- EThe new law(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The law leaves out businesses with fewer than nine workers. Do their employees get repetitive stress injuries too?
That limit makes me pause. A rule could improve conditions in the businesses it covers and still leave a large part of the province's problem untouched. I also want to know whether the remedies workers request will actually help. Calling a condition “safer” and allowing employees to demand a solution don't tell us how much the injury rate will fall.
Hasina also recommends enforcing the law widely. That raises a broader question: what would enforcement cost, and are there other ways to protect workers? A rule might reduce injuries and still have other consequences worth considering. We shouldn't confuse that policy debate with whether the rule achieves this particular benefit.
Now the stem narrows our job. It asks us to support the claim in the last sentence: if the law is widely enforced, repetitive stress injuries will fall dramatically. We are not being asked to show that enforcement is certain or that the law is a good idea in every respect.
What we’re looking for
I'd welcome evidence that the required changes really reduce injuries. Another useful fact would be that the law covers most of the people experiencing these injuries. If the injuries mainly occur at five-person businesses, even perfect enforcement could miss the people who need help.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Most people who experience these injuries work at businesses with at least nine employees. That is exactly the group the law covers. The answer makes a dramatic reduction more plausible because the new protections reach much of the population experiencing the problem. It doesn't prove that every measure will work, but a strengthener only needs to improve the case.
- B
Greater public awareness is already reducing injuries. That's a reason the injury rate could fall even without this law. It doesn't show that enforcing the new standards will produce the dramatic reduction Hasina predicts. Keep the proposed cause in view: we need support for the law's effect, not just good news about injury rates.
- C
This makes consistent enforcement more likely. But the claim we are supporting already starts with “If” the law is enforced. Our question is what happens under that condition. Guaranteeing enforcement doesn't tell us whether the enforced law will reduce injuries.
- D
Some large businesses already follow similar standards. Then enforcement may change little at those businesses. “Some” doesn't mean all businesses have already solved the problem, so D doesn't make the law pointless. It simply gives us no new reason to expect the law to produce a dramatic improvement.
- E
Reporting an injury and preventing an injury are different things. More reporting could make officials aware of problems that already exist, but E doesn't tell us those reports will lead to fewer injuries. We would have to add that missing step ourselves to make this support the predicted reduction.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.