PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 24
The United States ranks far behind countries such(70 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(6 more words not shown)
- AThe establishment of(21 more words not shown)
- BA joint safety(23 more words not shown)
- CWorkplace safety in(28 more words not shown)
- DJoint safety committees(25 more words not shown)
- EThe United States(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If these committees work in the United States too, why wouldn't adding more of them help?
At first, the international comparison leaves plenty of questions. Perhaps the countries have different industries or other safety practices. A difference in injury rates alone wouldn't tell us what caused it. But the passage gives us something more useful: these joint committees have successfully reduced injuries in all three countries, including the United States. We don't have to assume a foreign practice would transfer successfully; we're told it has worked here.
The difference is how widely the committees are used. Only a few U.S. companies have established them voluntarily. In Sweden and several Canadian provinces, the law requires them in all medium-sized and large workplaces. Wider use of something that already reduces injuries gives us a reasonable prediction of fewer injuries in the United States too.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the information supports. Keep that prediction limited to improvement. We haven't established that committees explain the entire international gap, or calculated how far a broader U.S. program would close it.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Establishing the committees more broadly would reduce occupational injuries. The key support is their stated success in the United States as well as the other countries. Extending that successful practice beyond the few companies already using it supports expecting a reduction. We don't need a prediction that every injury disappears or that the United States becomes the safest country.
- B
A legal requirement can produce more committees without making each committee more effective. Imagine equally effective committees in two countries, with many more workplaces having one in the country that requires them. Their overall reach would differ even though their individual effectiveness didn't. That's a possibility, not a fact we know here. The passage establishes success and different levels of use, not superiority of required committees over voluntary ones.
- C
We aren't given the countries' safety rankings before the laws were passed. Sweden and Canada might already have been safer, or their relative positions might have changed. Today's comparison doesn't establish the earlier one. C adds a historical claim for which we have no information.
- D
We know committees now exist across the specified workplaces where the laws require them. We don't know how many workplaces had adopted them voluntarily beforehand. The law could have expanded a rare practice or formalized a widespread one. The passage doesn't choose between those histories.
- E
Improvement doesn't establish that the United States would overtake Sweden and Canada. We don't know the size of the gap, the size of the expected reduction, or the contribution of other safety differences. Even catching up would need more support. A makes the supported prediction of fewer injuries without inventing a new international ranking.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.