PrepTest 101, Section 3, Question 22
Letter to the editor: After Baerton's factory closed,(58 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(6 more words not shown)
- AWorkers cannot file(19 more words not shown)
- BIn the years(15 more words not shown)
- CMost workers who(16 more words not shown)
- DWorkers who incur(33 more words not shown)
- EWorkers who are(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Filing after losing a job doesn't tell us when the injury happened.
Maybe these workers had been putting up with back pain while they still had a paycheck. Maybe they feared what would happen if they filed a claim while employed. An accident could even have injured workers and caused the factory to close. We don't know that any of those things happened, but they show why the timing of the claims leaves room for legitimate injuries.
The letter instead treats that timing as a reason to suspect that most of the claims are undeserved. Wanting money after losing a job is possible, but needing money doesn't make a real injury disappear. A worker could file to get through the job loss and still deserve compensation. We need more than the increase in filings to decide what's behind it.
What we’re looking for
This is a weaken EXCEPT question. Four answers should give us a reason to doubt the letter's suspicion; one won't. I'd expect explanations for why genuinely injured workers might wait until the factory closed, or evidence of actual injuries around the time of the closure.
Working the answers
- A
This gives a direct reason for the delay. A worker could have suffered hearing loss for years but been unable to file until leaving the job. The closure then opens the door to claims for injuries that were already real. A rise in filings would not require a rise in dishonest claims, so A weakens the letter's inference.
- B
If earlier employees lost their jobs after filing claims, current employees had a reason to be afraid of filing. They might tolerate an injury rather than risk their wages. Once the factory closes, preserving that job is no longer a reason to wait. B explains how the timing could reflect a former obstacle to legitimate claims.
- CCorrect
What most injured workers generally do doesn't explain why this factory's workers would have legitimate claims to file after the closure. C supplies no obstacle that kept them from filing earlier and no reason to think they suffered real injuries near the end. Their claims could still be valid exceptions to the general pattern, but this answer doesn't provide evidence for that explanation. It therefore doesn't weaken the letter's argument.
- D
A partially disabled worker might keep working because wages cover the bills and compensation alone would not. If claiming compensation requires stopping work, filing would mean giving up the better source of income. The factory's closure removes the option of keeping those wages. A genuine injury could now prompt a claim that the worker previously couldn't afford to make. That undermines the inference from delayed filing to an undeserved claim.
- E
This supplies a possible source of real injuries. The workers anticipate losing their jobs, become depressed, and, according to the answer, become more prone to workplace injury. The increased risk could produce injuries before the factory shuts down, followed by claims afterward. It doesn't prove every claim is legitimate, but it gives a reason for an increase that doesn't depend on workers inventing injuries.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.