LSAT 101 – Section 3 – Question 22

LSAT 101 - Section 3 - Question 22

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:21

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT101 S3 Q22
+LR
Except +Exc
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
3%
161
B
8%
165
C
76%
169
D
5%
159
E
7%
165
145
156
166
 +Harder 146.901 +SubsectionMedium

Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s factory closed, there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory’s former employees. Hence there is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve, and filed only to help them weather their job loss.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the factory’s former employees filed for benefits to help weather unemployment, rather than for legitimate injury-related reasons. He supports this stance by pointing to the increase in injury claims made after the factory closed, compared to while the factory was open.

Notable Assumptions
Based on a correlation between injury claims and employment status, the author assumes the latter is causing the former. The author also assumes that former employees don’t have legitimate injuries they withheld making claims for until after their employment came to an end. And the author assumes that nothing happened shortly before the factory closed that would’ve caused a legitimate increase in injury claims.

A
Workers cannot file for compensation for many job-related injuries, such as hearing loss from factory noise, until they have left the job.
Since workers can’t file for compensation until after their employment ends, it makes sense claims went up after the factory closed. This certainly weakens.
B
In the years before the factory closed, the factory’s managers dismissed several employees who had filed injury claims.
Employees were afraid to file injury claims, since the ones who did lost their jobs. This explains the sharp increase in claims once the factory shut down.
C
Most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury.
If most workers file for compensation right away, then why did all these employees wait until after the factory closed? This doesn’t give us nearly enough information to weaken the author’s argument.
D
Workers who incur partial disabilities due to injuries on the job often do not file for compensation because they would have to stop working to receive compensation but cannot afford to live on that compensation alone.
Workers chose not to file injury claims since they would’ve had to have stopped working. Once the factory was closed, they were free to file those claims since they no longer had jobs to protect.
E
Workers who are aware that they will soon be laid off from a job often become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries.
Workers actually sustained more workplace injuries shortly before the factory closed, hence why they filed more claims.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply