PrepTest 132, Section 4, Question 20
Many workers who handled substance T in factories(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AEmployees who are(19 more words not shown)
- BManufacturers should be(10 more words not shown)
- CManufacturers have an(12 more words not shown)
- DWhether or not(18 more words not shown)
- EManufacturers should be(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
At first, I'd want to know whether substance T really caused the illnesses. Factory workers could have encountered other hazards, and illnesses years later wouldn't by themselves establish the cause. But the next sentence gives us that fact: T caused at least some of the illnesses. We should accept it and move to the argument's actual dispute.
Is the manufacturer responsible even though it didn't know the danger?
The author says an earlier safety investigation would have prevented many illnesses. That shows the harm was preventable. It doesn't yet tell us what makes the manufacturer responsible for failing to prevent it. Should it have investigated? Does being able to prevent this harm create responsibility for it?
What we’re looking for
The principle needs to answer that question in the author's favor. We want a rule taking us from preventable harm to responsibility.
Working the answers
- A
Compensation is a different issue. This says harmed employees should have their medical costs covered, but it doesn't say the manufacturer is responsible for the illnesses or who should pay. It doesn't supply the missing rule about fault.
- B
Read “only” carefully. This says a manufacturer shouldn't be held responsible unless the consequences were preventable. It doesn't say every preventable consequence creates responsibility.
If I say I'll go to the mall only if I have my keys, having my keys doesn't guarantee a trip. I might stay home. Likewise, meeting this condition for responsibility doesn't guarantee that we should hold the manufacturer responsible. We need a rule that does guarantee that step.
- C
This concerns risks the manufacturer already knows about. Our argument specifically says earlier ignorance doesn't remove all responsibility. A duty to disclose known risks doesn't establish responsibility for failing to discover an unknown risk.
- D
The author relies on preventability as a reason for responsibility. Declaring preventability irrelevant removes that reason rather than supplying the missing connection. D leaves us without a principle explaining why the manufacturer should be held responsible here.
- ECorrect
This rule says manufacturers should be responsible for harm their actions cause innocent people when the consequences were preventable. The workers suffered harm from T, and the argument says investigating its safety would have prevented many illnesses. Under this principle, earlier ignorance doesn't erase responsibility for that preventable harm.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.