Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 3 · Question 24

Question prompt

The United States ranks Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Facts

Valid or Flawed

NA

Question Type

Must Be True Questions

Stimulus Summary

US vs. Sweden/Canada All have workplace safety committees that have reduced occupational injuries US has more injuries than the other two US has voluntary workplace safety committees, whereas the other two have mandatory ones

Answer Anticipation

The stimulus has a lot of comparisons, showing similarities and differences between the US, and Sweden and Canada. Similarities - All countries have workplace safety committees that have reduced occupational injuries Differences - Sweden/Canada have much lower rates of workplace injuries compared to the US. They also have mandatory committees at all medium/large workplaces, as opposed to voluntary ones in the US at a “few” companies Taking a look at these, we know that the committees work. However, we can see that the US has implemented them at a lower rate than Canada and Sweden. Thus, it’s reasonable to infer that, should the US increase the number of companies with these committees, they would reduce the number of workplace injuries. Let’s find an answer stating that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The establishment of joint Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    We know that these committees work in the US (“have been very successful”), but they’re at “only [a] few” companies. As such, we can infer that, should they be expanded, they’d reduce the number of occupational injuries. Note that this answer is actually quite weak - even if 1,000 companies introduce committees and they, in total, prevent only a single accident, that would still be sufficient to support this answer.
  2. B
    A joint safety committee Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    We know that the committees in the US (voluntary) and Sweden/Canada (mandatory) both are very successful in reducing occupational injuries, but we don’t know if one is more effective than the other. The higher safety level in Sweden/Canada seems to be the result of these committees being required by law of all medium/large companies instead of being voluntary at a few companies as in the US, not because of a difference in effectiveness.
  3. C
    Workplace safety in Sweden Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    There’s no information about what happened before the time period in question, so this answer is out of scope.
  4. D
    Joint safety committees had Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The stimulus doesn’t talk about these committees in Sweden and Canada in the past, so this answer is out of scope.
  5. E
    The United States would Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Compare this answer to (A). They both talk about an increase in the workplace safety in the US. However, (A) is very weak in stating that these committees would decrease injuries by some amount, whereas this answer states that they’d decrease them by so much so as to overtake the safety in Sweden and Canada. As such, this answer is too strong to be supported by the stimulus.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A Credited 60%
  2. B 28%
  3. C 6%
  4. D 3%
  5. E 3%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion