A recent study has found that, surprisingly, the risk of serious injuries to workers is higher in industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors than in industries that are not so monitored.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Industries monitored by government safety inspectors are more dangerous to workers than industries that aren’t monitored by government safety inspectors.

Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains a key difference between government-monitored industries and non-government-monitored industries. That difference must result in the latter being safer for workers, likely because of the work involved or because of some other monitoring system in place.

A
Government safety inspectors not only monitor but also train employees of the inspected firms to follow safe practices.
This suggests that the government-inspected industries would be rather safe. We need to know why they’re less safe than non-government-monitored industries.
B
Government safety inspectors do not have the authority to enforce safety regulations.
It doesn’t matter if the regulations are enforced. We need to know why government monitoring is correlated with lower workplace safety.
C
Only those industries with an inherently high risk of on-the-job injury are monitored by government safety inspectors.
Government-monitored industries are less safe because the industries are inherently dangerous. Other industries, even though they’re not monitored, pose less risks to workers. This explains the surprising finding in the study.
D
Workers behave especially cautiously when they believe their performance is being monitored by government safety inspectors.
If workers are more cautious than usual in government-monitored industries, wouldn’t injuries be less common than usual? We need something to explain why they’re more common.
E
Some of the industries that are monitored by government safety inspectors have much lower rates of injuries than do other industries that are also so monitored.
We’re not interested in outliers. Our stimulus tells us that government-monitored industries are generally less safe than other industries, and we need to know why that is.

1 comment

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

Mario: The field of cognitive science is not a genuinely autonomous discipline since it addresses issues also addressed by the disciplines of computer science, linguistics, and psychology. A genuinely autonomous discipline has a domain of inquiry all its own.

Lucy: Nonsense. You’ve always acknowledged that philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline and that, like most people, you think of philosophy as addressing issues also addressed by the disciplines of linguistics, mathematics, and psychology. A field of study is a genuinely autonomous discipline by virtue of its having a unique methodology rather than by virtue of its addressing issues that no other field of study addresses.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Lucy denies Mario’s claim that a genuinely autonomous discipline has its own domain inquiry and instead concludes a field is autonomous by virtue of having its own methodology. As evidence, she points out that in the past Mario has acknowledged philosophy as a genuinely autonomous discipline despite also thinking philosophy addresses issues also addressed by linguistics, mathematics, and psychology.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Lucy counters the position held by Mario. She does this by pointing out that Mario has demonstrated beliefs in the past that directly contradict the principle he asserts. If Mario has believed philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline, then it’s not supported that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain inquiry.

A
questioning Mario’s expertise in cognitive science
Lucy does not address Mario’s credentials or expertise. She only addresses the inconsistencies between Mario’s beliefs.
B
demonstrating that Mario confuses the notion of a field of study with that of a genuinely autonomous discipline
Lucy’s claims demonstrate that Mario has an incorrect definition of what it means for a discipline to be genuinely autonomous. This is different from confusing a genuinely autonomous discipline with a field of study.
C
showing that some of Mario’s beliefs are not compatible with the principle on which he bases his conclusion
The belief Mario holds is the belief that philosophy is a genuinely autonomous discipline. This belief contradicts Mario’s principle that a genuinely autonomous discipline must have a unique domain inquiry, because philosophy addresses issues also addressed by other disciplines.
D
disputing the accuracy of Mario’s description of cognitive science as addressing issues also addressed by other disciplines
Lucy does not address the topic of cognitive science specifically.
E
establishing that Mario is not a philosopher
Lucy does not address Mario’s status as a philosopher. We cannot assume this just because Lucy establishes that Mario holds inconsistent beliefs about philosophy.

2 comments

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this

This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!

Comment on this