Very interested.

For what it's worth, I cannot overstate the level of service, professionalism, and personal investment that I have received from David Busis since I purchased the admissions comprehensive course (a month or two ago) and began working with him. The guy is incredible. I honestly feel like the money I spent to receive his insight and guidance is a bargain.

Good luck @ with your LSAT and admissions. You appear to be very driven and conscientious. You will do great!

Thanks for the correction and guidance. I have amended the discussion thread.

My apologies. I'll correct it right away!

Take my explanation with little clout, since I am a novice.

I think you are correct. Here's why. The negation of a statement is equivalent to the logical opposite. Since the word "some" in the LSAT world means at least one, possibly all, the logical opposite of at least one is: none. Since the word "most" in the LSAT world means something greater than 50%, possibly all, the logical opposite would be: something less than 50%, which would naturally include anything from 0-50%.

Hi there!

The stimulus doesn't actually contain an argument, nor a conclusion, but rather, a set of facts.

Since the question type is a MSS, our job is to identify the answer choice that is most supported by the facts contained in the stimulus. Remember that the level of proof with a MSS question is not as high as a MBT. If the question stem asked you to identify what Must Be True given the information in the stimulus, then you are correct in your assertion that there is no way to guarantee the outcome cited in answer choice A. But, our job isn't to make an inference; our job is to support one of the answer choices.

The way I understand the stimulus is that the US is far behind Canada and Sweden in "workplace safety", not in workplace safety regulations. Those US companies that have used joint labor-management committees to oversee workplace safety conditions, have successfully reduced workplace injuries. But, since US companies have not had a widespread adoption of these committees, the US has not been as successful in reducing workplace injuries as those countries who use those committees extensively, such as Sweden and Canada who are required to use those committees for all medium-sized and large workplaces.

Since there has been a successful reduction in workplace injuries in the limited US companies that use these committees, wouldn't it stand to reason that if all medium-sized and large US companies similarly used such committees (whether on a volunteer or mandatory basis), there would be even a greater reduction in occupational injuries? This is what Answer Choice A states.

Given the information in the stimulus, we simply have no way of knowing whether or not these committees were used voluntarily in Sweden and Canada prior to the law that required their use. Perhaps the government required the use of such committees from the beginning.

I sure hope this helps. If not, please let me know and I'll see if I can take another stab at it. :-)