PrepTest 154, Section 1, Question 19
Medical researcher: At the Flegco Corporation, all employees(53 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the medical(14 more words not shown)
- AIt compares the(19 more words not shown)
- BIt fails to(24 more words not shown)
- CIt takes for(23 more words not shown)
- DIt confuses the(24 more words not shown)
- EIt fails to(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What jobs are the two groups doing?
We know every employee who lifts heavy objects wears a back belt. So the belt-wearing group includes the people whose work puts strain on their backs. The group without belts could include people doing very different work. Imagine comparing warehouse employees lifting heavy loads with accountants working at desks. Different injury rates wouldn't be surprising even if the belts helped.
For a simple illustration, suppose heavy lifting without a belt would produce injuries in 20 out of 100 workers. A helpful belt might reduce that to 10. If only 2 out of 100 people doing less strenuous work were injured, the belt wearers would still have the higher rate: 10 versus 2. Yet the belts would have helped the group using them. These are hypothetical numbers, not the study's figures.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is the comparison. To evaluate the belts, we need to consider how likely the groups were to be injured apart from wearing them. The study compares people with and without belts, but the work they do may already give them very different risks. A higher rate among belt wearers doesn't establish that the belts provide no protection.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The two groups probably don't share the same risk factors. All the heavy-lifting employees wear belts, while the people without belts aren't doing that heavy-lifting work. The work itself could explain why belt wearers are injured more often. The conclusion overlooks the possibility that belts reduce a high risk without reducing it below the other group's lower risk.
- B
We aren't comparing Flegco with another corporation. The comparison is between employees wearing belts and employees not wearing them within Flegco. Differences in belt use at other companies don't identify the problem with treating these two groups as comparable.
- C
The researcher doesn't conclude that belts cause injuries. The conclusion is that belts don't help prevent injuries. Those are different claims. Something could be ineffective without being harmful, so an answer describing a leap to causing the problem doesn't precisely match the conclusion here.
- D
This describes confusing “doesn't cause injuries” with “helps prevent injuries.” The researcher doesn't make that move. There is no premise saying belts don't cause injuries followed by a conclusion that they therefore protect workers. The actual argument uses different injury rates to deny a protective effect.
- E
The argument doesn't claim that any factor guarantees an injury and then overlook other ways an injury could occur. It compares how likely injuries are in two groups. The flaw concerns their different starting risks, not whether a cause that can guarantee an effect is the only way to produce it.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.