Letter to the editor: Support 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. █████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███ ████████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ █████
The author concludes that the factory’s former employees filed for workplace injury benefits to help weather unemployment, rather than for legitimate injury-related reasons. To support this stance, the author points to a sharp increase in injury claims after the factory closed, compared to while the factory was open.
Based on a correlation between injury claims and employment status, the author concludes that the latter is causing the former. To get to that conclusion, the author assumes that former employees didn't have previous 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.
Each of the following, if █████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ ███████
Workers cannot file ███ ████████████ ███ ████ ███████████ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████
Since workers can’t file for compensation until after their employment ends, it makes sense that legitimate claims went up after the factory closed. This certainly weakens.
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
In the years ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ █████████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ███████
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, and weakens the argument that the claims were illegitimate.
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Most workers who ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███████
If most workers file for compensation right away, then why did all these employees wait until after the factory closed? If anything, this strengthens the author’s argument by eliminating alternative explanations.
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
Workers who incur ███████ ████████████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████████████ ██████
Workers chose not to file injury claims since they would have had to stop working, which they couldn't afford. Once the factory was closed, they were free to file those claims since they no longer had jobs to protect.
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Workers who are █████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ████ █ ███ █████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███████████ █████████
So there's a reason why workers probably sustained more workplace injuries shortly before the factory closed. This explains why they filed more claims after the factory closed, without any illegitimacy involved.
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.