In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increase

lnm87 VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring

Why is (B) incorrect in providing alternate explanation for this causal argument?




We need to weaken the argument.

Cause: Introduction of legitimization.
Effect: Increased overall safety standards in high-risk industries.

Is it because (B) talks about incorrect time frame?




I thought this answer as OUT OF SCOPE of argument.


I am not too sure if likelihood (in stimulus) can be relate to a ratio / probability or a %tage.
But one thing I learnt closely while doing LSAT qs is to read precisely.
This choice talks about work-related injuries, whereas argument talks about serious injuries. OUT.


Again, same as C. OUT.


An OUT OF SCOPE choice. Does nothing to argument.

Let me know where I faltered / had gaps in my reasoning.
_________________

First thing first, I faltered in this question and marked D as my answer.

Anyway here's my post-attempt analysis:
In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. - Context presented in the argument.
Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. - A finding after the Govt's increased control.
The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries. - Concusion.

Note - Colored text are cues from argument.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

(A) Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955. - This was runner-up for me. Initially, i thought this is straight wrong since the option dealt with kind of double negative. A lack of attention is also responsible for leaving it without paying much attention on the highlighted text in the argument. Post attempt the highlighted text in the option should be the guiding light for us.

(B) Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness. - Irrelevant or out of scope for it is not relating anything with the argument actually.

(C) The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect. - Out due to its open claim since it can go either way. Had it been percentage then it could have been a contender. Actually goes in right direction but loses its focus for it speaks broadly.

(D) The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955. - Marked it since i faltered while reading the argument not while reading this option. Again lack of attention to read carefully the highlighted part led me to mark it correct.

(E) Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955. - Goes in favour of the argument rather against it. Similar to C it is broadly speaking.

A is correct because it says that protection while interacting is not needed now but it was needed in 1955.

adkikani you are right about out of scope in B's context but more importantly it's not relating anything from that time to the time after 1955 thus it doesn't attack the conclusion.

Hope this helps...!!
_________________

Here the conclusion is:
The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries.

As per conclusion, it is the legislation by which the safety has been increased. To weaken it, we need something else by which safety has increased or injuries has decreased.

Clearly option A says that most workplaces do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery. - This leads to decline in injuries by which safety automatically increased, not legislation.

Option B: Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness. - out of scope coz we need not to care about injuries before 1955.

Option D:The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955. - Again, it is out of scope. It is saying about injuries not high risk, but we need to check something else rather than legislation.

Hope it works!!!

Posted from my mobile device

We need to find an answer choice that, if true, would most WEAKEN the conclusion. The argument is concerned with the impact of legislation on the increased safety within HIGH-RISK INDUSTRIES. Of all the 5 answer choices, ONLY (A) talks about injuries in HIGH-RISK INDUSTRIES. We can eliminate (B), (C), (D), (E) quickly on this ground.
Regarding (A)
(A) Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.
(A) introduces an ALTERNATIVE cause, other than legislation, for increased worker safety within high-risk industries: increased worker safety may simply result from LESS UNPROTECTED INTERACTION, thanks to technological innovation, between workers and heavy machinery in the workplaces in the high-risk industries. Hence, (A) weakens the conclusion and is therefore correct.

Hi,

Option B does not address the right entity that the argument addresses, that is the high risk industries. Option B addresses everything and so does not have an impact on the argument.
Option A addresses the right entity and suggests that another variable was responsible for the decrease in likelihood.

A. This gives an alternative explanation for why the injuries might have decreased.
Good.
B. Irrelevant
C. While this weakens the fact that the legislation might not be working, the specific conclusion of the argument is that serious injuries decreased in high risk industries.
D. Same case as C.
E. Might be so. But it doesn’t address the conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device