PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 3
The manager of a nuclear power plant defended(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AWorkers at nuclear(20 more words not shown)
- BWorkers at nuclear(16 more words not shown)
- CThe exposure of(15 more words not shown)
- DWorkers at nuclear(15 more words not shown)
- EMedical problems arising(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Only 3.2 injuries per 200,000 hours sounds reassuring. I still want to know what counts as an injury.
A stubbed toe and a permanent disabling injury shouldn't count as equally serious when we're deciding whether a workplace is safe. So my first reaction is that the number alone could hide a difference in severity.
The manager later specifies a comparison by the number of injuries, which narrows that particular claim. We should recognize that qualification while still examining whether the figures justify the comparison.
There's another question: does the national average describe the other plants where these employees could actually work? Imagine their available alternatives are unusually safe. Beating the national average wouldn't establish that this plant beats those alternatives. That's a possible mismatch between the evidence and the conclusion, not a fact about their local job market.
What we’re looking for
For the weakener, I'd particularly expect something challenging that comparison with the available workplaces. Evidence about more serious harm could also make the broad safety claim less reassuring. But we shouldn't insist that the answer use either prediction. We need to read what it actually adds and ask whether it undermines the manager's use of the injury figures.
Working the answers
- A
Paying for training on their own time might make employees unhappy with the arrangement. It doesn't establish that this plant has more injuries or is less safe than the alternatives. Extra safety training could help prevent harm. Who pays for it doesn't answer the manager's safety comparison.
- B
A rule requiring reports of accidental radiation exposure doesn't show that dangerous exposure is frequent, that harm goes uncounted, or that this plant compares badly with others. Reporting a risk and having a high level of that risk are different. B doesn't supply evidence against the claim.
- C
Radiation exposure within government-approved limits doesn't call the safety claim into question. It could be reassuring about that particular hazard. It wouldn't prove every aspect of the plant safe, but an answer needn't prove the manager right to fail as a weakener.
- D
Few lawsuits don't prove a workplace safe; workers might have other reasons not to sue. But D doesn't tell us there are hidden injuries either. The small number of lawsuits supplies no clear reason to distrust the reported safety comparison. We shouldn't invent missing cases to turn it into a weakener.
- ECorrect
This raises a problem I hadn't predicted: the count concerns current workers, while these medical problems tend to appear after workers have left. The statistic could miss harm caused by the job simply because that harm develops later.
Imagine a worker leaves apparently healthy and develops a work-related illness years afterward. That harm matters to the plant's safety, but it wouldn't appear as an injury to a current employee. The stated figure could therefore be accurate and still give a misleading picture of the risk. E doesn't prove the plant is the most dangerous option; it undermines the manager's basis for declaring it safer.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.