PrepTest 143, Section 3, Question 12
Policy: The factory's safety inspector should not approve(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AThe factory at(16 more words not shown)
- BThe proposed new(10 more words not shown)
- CSome of the(17 more words not shown)
- DThe safety inspector(13 more words not shown)
- EThe proposed new(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about the other way to meet the policy? A new process needs at least one of two things before the inspector may approve it: more than a year of safe use at another factory, or a demonstrated increase in safety at this factory. Meeting one of those requirements wouldn't force the inspector to approve it. But failing both would rule approval out.
The application tells us the welding process cannot be shown to increase safety. That closes one route. It says nothing about whether another factory has used the process safely for more than a year. If that happened, the stated reason for rejecting it wouldn't finish the job.
What we’re looking for
To justify the rejection under this policy, close that remaining route too. I'd look for something establishing that the process lacks the required history of safe use elsewhere.
Working the answers
- A
What kind of problems? The process might have been expensive or inconvenient while remaining safe. Also, problems at the first factory don't rule out more than a year of safe use at a different factory. A doesn't establish that the policy's alternative requirement has gone unmet.
- BCorrect
If no other factory has used the process at all, no other factory has used it safely for more than a year. The application already rules out a demonstrated safety increase here. Now both alternatives are unavailable, so the policy requires the inspector not to approve the process. This doesn't prove the process is inherently unsafe; it proves it lacks what this policy requires for approval.
- C
We aren't deciding which of the existing processes is safest. Even if some current processes are no safer than the proposed one, that doesn't establish the proposed process's history at other factories. The missing fact concerns that alternative route under the policy.
- D
This adds a restriction on what the inspector will approve but doesn't tell us whether the proposed process meets it. Perhaps the process has been used extensively elsewhere. We still lack the fact about this process that would justify rejecting it.
- E
One other factory could be enough. If it used the process safely for more than a year, the process would meet that part of the policy. The policy doesn't demand multiple factories, so “only one” doesn't close the route we need to rule out.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.