Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 1 · Question 4

Incorrect. The expected outcome being seen in another industry—transportation—doesn't explain why it wasn't seen in the one in question—manufacturing.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Experts — Job safety training results in a safer work environment.
Specific situation — Manufacturers that improved job safety training saw a higher number of on—the—job accidents.

Answer Anticipation:
Remember that, for Paradox questions, we're not allowed to question the opinion of experts—the correct answer will align with such safety training resulting in a safer work environment.

So how can we explain the experience of manufacturers, who saw their accident numbers go up despite having a safer work environment (which we accept as the outcome of job safety training, as stated by the experts)?

Well, there's a key word in the stimulus that highlights a frequent flaw on the exam—number." When talking about a safe working environment, the relevant metric is the accident rate, not the total number of accidents. A workplace with 100 accidents/year could be safer than one with 10/year if the former has a workforce that's 1000x bigger! Therefore, this paradox can be resolved through any answer that highlights a growth in the workforce at the manufacturers, thus allowing for a safer workplace despite a growing number of accidents.

Answer Explanation:
This answer explains how the number of on—the—job accidents could have gone up even if job safety training leads to safer work environments. If the manufacturing workforce increases but gets safer, a higher number of accidents can be compatible with a lower rate of accidents. This answer plays off of a Percent vs. Amount issue that could come up with the data, and it thus resolves the paradox.

Key Takeaway:
Just because you're in a question type that doesn't usually rely on the use of specific errors in reasoning doesn't mean you should forget about those! Here, noting that the stimulus was about the number of accidents, and that the LSAT frequently brings up numbers in order to make a flawed jump between them and percents/rates, was key to answering the question efficiently.

Incorrect. If anything, this makes the paradox worse. If accident rates had just gone up, and then the manufacturers started job safety training, and they increased even more, then these workplaces are really unsafe!

Incorrect. If they weren't a random fluctuation, then they had a cause, despite the job safety training supposedly making the workplace safer. This answer doesn't provide any answers—it just brings up more certainty of a problem/paradox.

Incorrect. This answer may highlight why there couldn't be a greater reduction in the number of accidents (since other safety measures weren't already in place), but it doesn't explain why the safety training didn't itself result in a positive shift in accidents.