PT19.S2.Q24 - the united states ranks far behind countries such as sweden

rogersalexandra7rogersalexandra7 Alum Member
edited June 2017 in Logical Reasoning 213 karma

So I chose D because I thought that the conclusion of the stimulus was that the US is behind in the sense that they should make these safety regulations a requirement not that they aren't actually safe because in the stimulus it says that they are all successful in reducing occupational injuries and I thought it was reasonable to infer that it would start out as volunteering then lead to a law.
I thought A was incorrect because we're speculating, we can't possibly know what will happen in the future unless were told something in the stimulus, so long story short, I am confused haha, can someone explain this one to me please? TYA!

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-2-question-24/

Comments

  • Freddy_DFreddy_D Core Member ⭐
    2983 karma

    Answer choice A is speculating; however, it is supported by the fact that we are told in the stimulus that the establishment of these committees are very successful in reducing occupational injuries. Therefore, if the US were to set up such committees in all medium-sized and large workplaces, it is reasonable to conclude that this would result in a reduction in occupational injuries.

  • Niner PapaNiner Papa Alum Member
    47 karma

    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. :-)

  • rogersalexandra7rogersalexandra7 Alum Member
    213 karma

    now it makes sense! Thank you both so much!

Sign In or Register to comment.