Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S3 · Q12 Policy: The factory's safety inspector

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

Policy: The factory's safety inspector should not approve a new manufacturing process unless it has been used safely for more than a year at another factory or it will demonstrably increase safety at the factory.

Principle (unless = if not)

if a new manufacturing process hasn't been used safely for more than a year safety at another factory → inspector and should not it won't demonstrably approve it increase safety here

Application's Conclusion

The new proposed welding process should be not be approved by the safety inspector.

Application's Evidence (for)

The process cannot be shown to increase safety at the factory.

Evaluate

The policy, in stripped down form, is saying . We could rephrase that as, , which would look like this:

X → Y or Z

Or in the language of the argument:

should → used safely elsewhere approve or will demonstrably help

We are motivated to contrapose this rule for two reasons: 1. We always put the "judgy, normative, evaluative" label on the right side of the arrow, so we want the concept of should/shouldn't on the right.

2. We want the right side of our principle to line up with the conclusion it's designed to support, and the conclusion is that .

So when contrapose, the "or" turns to "and".

not safely used elsewhere should and → not not demonstrably help approve

The application has established the 2nd idea from the trigger. If , then we know "it does not demonstrably increase safety".

But the application failed to establish the 1st idea from the trigger.

Goal

We just need to know that the new welding process .

12.

Which one of the following, if true, justifies the above application of the policy?

  1. The factory at which the

    Too Weak

    The only thing we care about is whether or not this proposed new welding process has been used safely for more than a year at another factory. If it hasn't, then we've proven the conclusion (i.e. justified the application). This is leaning a bit in that direction, because "this new welding process has been problematic at one factory" is heading in the direction of "this new welding process has not been used safety for more than a year at any other factory". But this is nowhere near strong enough to convince us that the process hasn't been used safely for more than a year at any other factory.

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    The proposed new welding process

    Why this is right

    The only thing we care about is whether or not this proposed new welding process has been used safely for more than a year at another factory. If it hasn't, then we've proven the conclusion (i.e. justified the application). According to this answer, the new process has never been used at any other factory. If it's never been used elsewhere, then clearly it's never been "used safely for more than 1 year" elsewhere. Thus, we've proven the conclusion! Both parts of the Policy's trigger have been established and so the outcome, "should not approve", follows.

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

    81% picked this

  3. Some of the manufacturing processes

    Unrelated to Goal

    The only thing we care about is whether or not this proposed new welding process has been used safely for more than a year at another factory. This answer doesn't provide any clarity on that matter.

    2% picked this

  4. The safety inspector will not

    Unrelated to Goal

    The only thing we care about is whether or not this proposed new welding process has been used safely for more than a year at another factory. This answer doesn't provide any clarity on that matter.

    4% picked this

  5. The proposed new welding process

    Unclear Impact

    The only thing we care about is whether or not this proposed new welding process has been used safely for more than a year at another factory. This answer tells us that the new process has only been used in one other factory. Okay ... don't keep us in suspense ... at that other factory, was it used safely for more than a year? Since this answer doesn't tell us whether it was or wasn't used safely for more than a year, this does nothing for us.

    1% 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