Logical reasoning PrepTest 101 · Section 3 · Question 22

Incorrect. This answer provides an alternative explanation—that the workers couldn't file a claim while they were still working, and so it makes sense for there to be a spike after the plant closed. Since it provides an alternative explanation, this answer weakens the argument and can be eliminated.

Incorrect. This answer provides an alternative explanation. If people were afraid they'd be fired if they filed a claim, then once that fear is gone (since they already lost their job), then it makes sense for there to be a spike in claims.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon - After a factory closed, the number of injury claims skyrocketed
Explanation - These workers filed claims just to get money, not because they were injured

Answer Anticipation:
This argument attempts to explain a phenomenon—that injury claims skyrocketed after a plant closed. It's explanation? People who weren't injured were filing claims in order to get some money to weather the job loss.

Whenever an argument brings up a phenomenon and attempts to explain it, it's almost always going to ignore alternative explanations. In a Weaken question, the correct answer will generally, then, bring up an alternative explanation. In this Bizarro question, then, the incorrect answers will likely bring up alternatives or undermine the suggested one.

Let's head into the answers with that in mind.

Answer Explanation:
This answer, if anything, provides evidence that the claims in question very well might be fraudulent, since most legitimate claims are made on the day of the injury and not later on. As such, this answer doesn't weaken the argument and is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that propose an explanation for a phenomenon are generally ignoring/failing to rule out alternative explanations. As such, pay attention to answers that mention alternative explanations.

Incorrect. This answer provides an alternative explanation. If people can't live on the injury compensation alone and they can't work after filing, then it makes sense that they'd not file while still having a job, and that they'd file a legitimate claim (since they are injured, after all) after the factory closes. This answer can be tempting because it seems to suggest that the people in question are filing just to get the money, but the stimulus specifically concludes that these people "d[o] not deserve" the money, whereas this answer is about people who are legitimately injured.

Incorrect. This answer provides an alternative explanation. If these workers sustained more injuries close to the factory closing, then it makes sense that there was a spike of injury claims around that time.