PrepTest 126, Section 1, Question 7
In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave(41 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- ABecause of technological(24 more words not shown)
- BMost of the(12 more words not shown)
- CThe annual number(10 more words not shown)
- DThe number of(13 more words not shown)
- EWorkplace safety conditions(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The work became safer. Did the legislation make it safer?
The law changed in 1955, and the risk of serious injury has fallen since then. That sequence is consistent with the law helping. It is also consistent with something else improving conditions. Maybe machinery became safer. Maybe workers demanded better protections and employers responded. The date alone doesn't tell us which explanation is right.
What we’re looking for
To weaken the argument, I'd look for another reason workers are less likely to get seriously hurt. We can accept the improvement while questioning the credit the author gives the legislation.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Better technology means workers have less unprotected contact with heavy machinery. That offers a concrete explanation for the lower injury risk: fewer opportunities to be crushed or otherwise hurt by those machines. The legislation could still have helped, but the author can no longer point to the improvement as though the law were the only explanation.
- B
What changed? Knowing that carelessness caused most injuries before 1955 doesn't explain why the risk later fell. The law might have reduced opportunities for careless behavior to cause harm, or something else might have done so. B doesn't tell us which.
- C
More injuries doesn't necessarily mean a greater risk for each worker. Suppose 10 of 100 workers were injured before, while 100 of 10,000 were injured later. The number rose from 10 to 100, but the risk fell from 10 percent to 1 percent. A much larger workforce could produce more injuries even in safer workplaces.
C also concerns work-related injuries generally, while the evidence concerns serious injuries in high-risk industries. It doesn't isolate the same group or severity. These broader numbers don't show that the claimed safety improvement failed to occur or that the law couldn't have helped.
- D
These are industries the conclusion doesn't cover. An increase in injuries in low-risk industries doesn't explain what caused the decrease in serious-injury risk in high-risk industries. We need evidence about that claimed connection.
- E
This gives us a broader improvement, but we still need to know why it happened. The legislation might have contributed to safer conditions across industries. E doesn't offer an alternative explanation or another reason to doubt the role the author assigns the law.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.