PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 10
Air traffic controllers and nuclear power plant operators(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThere is no(14 more words not shown)
- BResident physicians have(19 more words not shown)
- CThe more hours(12 more words not shown)
- DThose who are(18 more words not shown)
- ESome resident physicians(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If exhaustion puts lives at risk in one job, why tolerate it in another? The comparison has some force. Air traffic controllers and nuclear plant operators face limits on exceptionally long hours because mistakes can jeopardize lives. Resident physicians also do work with life-or-death consequences, yet typically work 80-hour weeks. I can see why the author wants similar restrictions.
My first question is whether the roles work the same way. A resident might sometimes be observing or taking notes rather than independently making the decisions that create immediate danger. That doesn't deny the passage's claim that residents' work has life-or-death consequences; it asks how the comparison applies to their actual duties.
What we’re looking for
For an assumption the argument needs, look for something the author must take for granted in recommending the restriction. My initial concern is the comparison between the jobs. We need a claim the recommendation relies on, not just something that makes long hours sound unpleasant.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
What if exceptionally long hours are indispensable to an essential part of residency training? Then the author cannot simply carry the restrictions over from the other jobs without addressing what residents would lose. A rules out that obstacle: no indispensable part of their training requires those hours.
This isn't the concern I first noticed about the residents' duties. It is a separate assumption behind recommending the limit. Notice the strength of “indispensable”: something merely being customary or currently part of training wouldn't make it impossible to change. The problem would be an essential training requirement that cannot be met without the long hours.
- B
Residents needn't affect lives more directly than the other workers. Their work could affect lives equally directly, or through a somewhat longer chain, and the safety argument for restrictions could still apply. The recommendation doesn't require residents to win a comparison over whose influence is most direct.
- C
This requires every increase in weekly hours to make performance worse. The argument only concerns exceptionally long hours. Someone could perform just as well at 20 hours as at 10, then suffer a serious decline at an extreme workload. That would support the concern without satisfying C's much broader rule.
- D
This gives a policy for people whose work doesn't have life-or-death consequences. The passage explicitly places residents in the other group. The author doesn't need to settle work-hour rules for everyone else to recommend limits for residents.
- E
Residents might welcome shorter hours, but their preferences aren't required for the safety argument. Even if none wanted the restriction, the author could still argue that it should apply to protect lives. What residents would like and what limits should be imposed are separate questions.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.