Self-paced
Support Many workers who handled substance T in factories became seriously ill years later. ██ ███ ████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████████████ ███ ███ ██ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ █████████ █████ ████ ████ ██████████
Summary
The author concludes that T’s manufacturer is at least partially responsible for the workers getting sick. Why? Because many workers who used T became ill, and T caused some of those illnesses. Even though the manufacturer didn’t know T was dangerous, many of the illnesses would have been prevented if it had investigated T’s safety.
Notable Assumptions
The premises tell us about a harmful consequence of T— workers’ illness— but they never explain why the manufacturer is responsible for that consequence. The author assumes that since the manufacturer could’ve prevented the illness by investigating T, it’s responsible for the illness.
To help justify the conclusion, we need a principle that satisfies this assumption by confirming that if a manufacturer could’ve prevented harmful consequences, then it’s responsible for those consequences.
20.
Which one of the following ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████
a
Employees who are ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ █████ ██ █ ███████
This leads to the wrong conclusion. The author doesn’t conclude that the manufacturer should compensate workers who were harmed by T. She argues that the manufacturer is responsible for the harm caused by T, since it could’ve prevented the harm by investigating T.
b
Manufacturers should be ████ ███████████ ████ ███ ███ ███████████ ████████████ ██ █████ ████████
This is the opposite of what we need. (B) says that if a manufacturer is responsible for a consequence, then that consequence was preventable. We know that the T’s consequence was preventable, but (B) doesn’t help us establish that the manufacturer is indeed responsible.
c
Manufacturers have an ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██████
Wrong trigger and wrong conclusion. The manufacturer was not aware of T’s risks. Even if it was, the author concludes that the manufacturer is responsible for T’s consequences, not that it had an obligation to inform workers of T’s risks.
d
Whether or not ██ ████████ ████████████ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ █ ████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ █████ █████████████
This suggests that the fact that T’s consequences were preventable is irrelevant in determining whether the manufacturer is responsible for those consequences. We need to know what factors are relevant in determining whether the manufacturer is responsible.
e
Manufacturers should be ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████████ ████ ████████████
T’s consequences would’ve been prevented if the manufacturer investigated T. So the consequences were preventable. (E) helps justify the conclusion that the manufacturer should be held responsible for T’s consequences, since they harmed innocent people and were preventable.