LSAT 126 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 126 - Section 1 - Question 07

October 2008

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:23

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
PT126 S1 Q07
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
78%
164
B
2%
158
C
14%
157
D
3%
156
E
3%
160
133
146
159
 +Medium 146.126 +SubsectionMedium

In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that legislation giving the government more control over workplace safety conditions increased workplace safety in high-risk industries. Her support is that the risk of serious injuries in high-risk industries has decreased since the legislation was introduced.

Notable Assumptions
From a mere correlation, the author concludes that the new legislation caused the decrease in serious injuries. This means she assumes that there wasn’t some unaccounted for, risk-reducing third factor that occurred around the same time as the legislation. The author also assumes that overall worker safety increased as the risk of serious injury decreased. This means she doesn’t believe less serious injuries increased once the legislation was enacted, or that those injuries don’t affect overall worker safety.

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 suggests that the legislation didn’t cause the decrease in injuries—technological innovation did. Since workers weren’t having as many unprotected interactions with heavy machinery, they weren’t sustaining as many serious injuries as before.
B
Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness.
Was that also true of the work-related injuries that occurred after 1955? Perhaps governments regulated in such a way that reduced the chance of carelessness leading to injury.
C
The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect.
Even if the annual number of injuries has increased, do these injuries outweigh the serious ones that have reduced? We don’t know.
D
The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.
We don’t care about non-high-risk industries. That’s not what the author is talking about.
E
Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955.
Perhaps the government began regulating across all industries. We need to know specifically about the government’s role in high-risk industries, and weaken the idea that the legislation improved overall worker safety in those industries.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 126 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply