Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S3 · Q22 Letter to the editor: After Baerton’s

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Letter to the editor: 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.

Conclusion (hence)

There is reason to believe that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve and filed only to help them weather their job loss.

Evidence

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.

Evaluate

The argument suggests a correlation between the factory closure and the timing of the increased number of injury claims. The author concludes that these claims are frivolous or undeserved, implying that former employees are exploiting their job loss to gain unmerited benefits.

Curious Fact: Why did claims for job-related injury compensation increase sharply after the factory closed?

Author's Explanation: Employees are filing undeserved claims to gain benefits due to job loss.

To weaken this argument, we would look for alternative explanations for why former employees might justifiably file more claims after losing their jobs.

Goal

Let's get rid of four answers that weaken. They can provide an alternate explanation for why most of these workers's comp claims were filed after the factory had closed, or just help us to argue some other way that the claims are legit, not faked.

22.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

  1. Workers cannot file for compensation

    Weakens

    This provides a legitimate reason for increased claims after the job ends and is contrary to the conclusion that claims are undeserving.

    8% picked this

  2. In the years before the

    Weakens

    This also presents an alternate explanation for why people waited until after the factory had closed to present their injury claims. This implies a discouraging environment for filing claims during employment, justifying an increase in post-closure filing.

    7% picked this

  3. Correct

    Most workers who receive an

    Why this is right

    This actually strengthens. It makes it more plausible that the author is correct, that a bunch of these post-factory injury claims are bogus. After all, most legitimate injury claims are filed the same day as the injury, but clearly if you file a claim after the factory has closed, then you're not filing on the same day as the injury.

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    70% picked this

  4. Workers who incur partial disabilities

    Weakens

    This provides an alternate explanation for why people with legitimate injury claims waited until after the factory closed. They couldn't afford to file those claims while they had the job. This suggests that once unemployed, these workers might finally seek compensation, offering a fair explanation for the claim increase.

    8% picked this

  5. Workers who are aware that

    Weakens

    This provides an explanation for how people could have legitimate injury claims after the factory closed. The closing of the factory actually led to a lot of job-related injuries, via the intermediate factor of depression. Whereas the other three weakening answers presented reasons why people with a legitimate injury would wait until after the factory closed to file, this answer provides a story where there's a big uptick in legitimate injuries right as the factory is closing. (on EXCEPT questions, it's very typical for three of the functional answers to do it one way, and the fourth functional answer to do it from a different angle, as this answer does).

    8% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free