Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 2 · Question 3

This doesn't match what we're looking for, so we can eliminate this. Besides, this makes the paradox all the more confusing. This answer choice describes two ways government safety inspectors can make workplaces safer. If inspectors can also train workers to follow safe practices, we'd expect workplaces with inspectors to be safer than unmonitored workplaces. That makes it even more confusing that monitored industries would carry a higher risk of onsite injuries.

This isn't similar to what we're looking for, so we can cross this answer choice off. Besides, this doesn't explain why industries with inspectors carry a higher risk of injuries. If government safety inspectors can't enforce safety regulations, then that could make the inspectors ineffective. But then we'd expect monitored industries to be about as risky as unmonitored industries. So, even if we assume that this answer choice renders inspectors completely ineffectual, the answer choice still doesn't explain why workers in monitored industries are at a higher risk of injury.

This is exactly what we anticipated, so we can select (C) and immediately advance to the next question. If the government only monitors industries that have an inherently high risk of injury, it makes sense that workers in monitored industries would be at a higher risk of injury. Perhaps these inspectors prevent some injuries, but the high risk means that people still tend to get injured more than those working in unmonitored injuries that don't carry this high risk.

This doesn't fit what we're looking for, so let's cross off (D). Besides, this makes the paradox all the more confusing. If workers behave "especially cautiously" when they think their performance is being inspected, we'd expect fewer injuries in workplaces with inspectors. That makes it even stranger that inspected workers would be at a higher risk of onsite injury.

This doesn't match our anticipation, so let's eliminate (E). Moreover, this answer choice uses the weak, wishy-washy language ("some") that we don't like on Paradox questions. Usually, answer choices that use this type of language do not supply enough information to meaningfully affect the argument. That's certainly the case here. The fact that some monitored industries have a lower rate of injury doesn't change the fact that monitored industries as a whole carry a higher risk of onsite injury. Rather than explain the surprising fact in the passage, this answer choice tries to make us think that the surprising fact doesn't exist.