The manager of a nuclear power plant defended the claim that the plant was safe by revealing its rate of injury for current workers: only 3.2 injuries per 200,000 hours of work, a rate less than half the national average for all industrial plants.
Conclusion (therefore)
The plant is safer than most other plants where employees could work, according to the rate of injuries.
Evidence
The plant's rate of injury is only 3.2 injuries per 200,000 hours of work.
This rate is less than half the national average for all industrial plants.
Evaluate
This argument uses comparative logic to conclude safety based on injury rates. The manager is suggesting that because their injury rate is lower than average, the plant is safer.
GIVEN THAT the plant's injury rate is way better than the national average for all industrial plants,
HOW COULD WE ARGUE THAT the plant is not safer than most other plants?
We might consider other aspects of safety that aren't captured by immediate injury rates. We could also question whether the injury reporting is comprehensive or if there are other hidden factors that might misrepresent the true safety conditions.
Goal
Let's find an answer that helps us argue that the plant is NOT safer than most other plants.