PrepTest 102

Incorrect. This answer seems to be addressing the part of the conclusion that states "where the employees could work." There is a disconnect between that and the premise that looks at the injury rate at all industrial plants. However, if workers at a nuclear plant receive extra training, then they'd be qualified to work at the plants other workers could work at and others, meaning that, if anything, what's true of all plants is more likely to apply to them than to other workers. As such, this answer is more in the strengthen direction than the weaken direction by connecting a qualification in the conclusion to the premise.

Incorrect. If anything, this suggests that fewer accidents are ignored and go unreported at nuclear plants, which would make the data more accurate and support the conclusion. This answer also doesn't indicate whether workers at other plants are required to report injuries, and such a comparison would be important in affecting an argument that compares different plants.

Incorrect. This answer suggests that the plants are safe, as the manager claims.

Incorrect. This answer suggests that, for the most part, the workers don't feel as if they were injured in a negligent manner, supporting the view that these plants are relatively safe.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Power plant - 3.2 injuries per 200k hours worked (current workers)
Other plants - More than double that
Conclusion - Based on injuries, the plant is safer than other plants where the employees could work

Answer Anticipation:
This argument relies on one of the most common types of logic on the LSAT—comparisons. The conclusion is that the plant is safer than other plants, and that's based on a comparison between injury rates.

Now, normally, we may say that injury rates aren't the whole story—there could be other things that create an unsafe workplace. However, the conclusion here is qualified—it states that the standard being used to determine safety is the number of injuries.

So where's the gap here? Well, there must be something going on with the data that doesn't guarantee that the nuclear plant is safer, even when limited to discussing injuries. Heading into the answers with that would give us something to work with, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, there's another (fairly subtle) element that, if spotted, could help us here. There's a timeline element to the argument in stating that the injury rates are for "current workers." Timeline elements are frequently relevant, and here, it's possible that injuries from a nuclear plant don't appear until years after retirement (e.g., cancer from radiation). Let's keep this in mind as we look at the answers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer weakens the argument by addressing the timeline element that we identified. The stats are based on current workers. If nuclear plant injuries appear only after an employee has left the plant, then those numbers wouldn't show up in the cited statistic, undermining the argument about safety based on those numbers. Note also that this answer compares nuclear plant injuries to injuries at other plants in stating that these nuclear plant injuries are "unusual" in that they happen after a worker leaves the plant, suggesting that at other plants, injuries happen while the worker is still at the job.

Key Takeaway:
First, when the argument uses any language that conveys some type of timeline—including "currently"—then you should pay attention, as it will frequently play into the logic of the argument.

Second, when an argument is comparative, the answers tend to allow for an additional comparison to be made.