Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S4 · Q3 The manager of a nuclear power

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

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.

3.

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the manager's claim?

  1. Workers at nuclear power plants

    Opposite (if anything)

    The fact that nuclear plant workers are required to receive extra safety training doesn't help us argue that this nuclear plant is less safe than most other plants. If anything going through safety training should make a place more safe.

    4% picked this

  2. Workers at nuclear power plants

    Opposite (if anything)

    The fact that nuclear plant workers are required to report potentially unsafe conditions doesn't help us argue that this nuclear plant is less safe than most other plants. If anything, a workplace that forces you to alert your bosses to safety hazards should make a place more safe.

    1% picked this

  3. The exposure of the workers

    Opposite (if anything)

    This sounds like the radiation levels at this plant are safe, so it doesn't help us argue that this nuclear plant is less safe than most other plants.

    2% picked this

  4. Workers at nuclear power plants

    Opposite (if anything)

    The fact that there are few lawsuits claiming unsafe working conditions, makes it seem like nuclear plant workers are in a pretty safe working environment, so it's not gonna help us argue that this nuclear plant is less safe than most other plants.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    Medical problems arising from work

    Why this is right

    This gives us way to say, "even though the injury rate is lower than that of most plants, this nuclear plant is not safer than most plants". After all, the medical problems you get (like cancer from the radiation) don't appear until later. This also impugns the quality of the evidence as a way of measuring the safety of nuclear plants. If most medical problems don't appear until after the employee has left employment, then it would be hard to measure the safety of the workplace by measuring current workers and their injury rate.

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

    89% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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