#20 - Many workers who handled substance T in factories

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this stimulus, the author attacks the manufacturer of substance T, which caused many factory workers to become ill. Although the manufacturer was unaware of the health risks posed by substance T at the time, the author argues that such ignorance does not absolve the manufacturer of responsibility, because the harm was preventable.

The second half of the stimulus contains the author’s argument against the manufacturer:

• Premise: Had the manufacturer of substance T investigated its safety before allowing workers to be exposed to it, many of their illnesses would have been prevented.
  
  Conclusion: Earlier ignorance of the connection between substance T and the workers’ illnesses does not absolve T’s manufacturer of all responsibility.

Note that the question stem is a Strengthen—PR, not a Justify—PR because of the presence of the word “most” in the question stem, which weakens the force required of the correct answer. In a Strengthen—PR question, the correct answer will provide a premise that, when applied to the specific situation in the stimulus, helps support the conclusion. Since a principle is by definition a broad rule (usually conditional in nature), the presence of the Principle indicator serves to broaden the scope of the question, which requires a more abstract understanding of the underlying relationships in the argument.

In this problem, you must select a principle that helps prove that substance T’s manufacturer should be held responsible for the harmful effects of that substance, since the effects were preventable. Because the manufacturer’s ignorance of the problem is deemed irrelevant, the principle need not address that issue. In short, we are looking for a broad rule that takes a conditional form similar to the following:

• S N
  
  Preventable Responsible

Answer choice (E) contains the statement that is closest to this prephrase, and answer choice (E) is correct.

Answer choice (A): The author is not concerned with the type of compensation, if any, owed to the workers who were harmed by substance T—the focus is on whether the manufacturer of substance T should be held responsible for the preventable detrimental effects of that substance.

Answer choice (B): There are two problems with this answer. First, it does not mention the element of “harm,” even though the author clearly holds the manufacturer of substance T responsible for the harmful consequences of handling substance T (not just for any preventable consequences). Second, and perhaps most importantly, this answer choice is the Mistaken Reversal of the principle we are looking for:

• S N
  
  Responsible Preventable

Our objective is not to limit responsibility only to the preventable consequences of a particular action, but to ensure that, if such consequences are preventable (and harmful), the manufacturer is held responsible for them.

Answer choice (C): One major problem with this answer choice is the phrase “risks of which they were aware.” Since the manufacturer was not aware of the health risks posed by substance T, this principle cannot help justify the author’s conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This is an Opposite answer because whether or not an action’s consequences were preventable is not irrelevant to the author’s conclusion. On the contrary—it is the central premise in the argument. If you found this answer choice attractive, you were mistakenly looking for a principle that justifies the manufacturer’s position. When approaching Strengthen—PR questions, make sure to distinguish between opposing viewpoints and identify a principle that would support the author’s position, not that of an opponent.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. If manufacturers are to be held responsible for the consequences of any of their actions that harm innocent people if those consequences were preventable, then the manufacturer of substance T should be held responsible. Substance T did harm innocent people (the factory workers), and the harm was preventable by investigation of its safety.

[ddion8206]

Powerscore,

Could some explain the answers for DEC 2010 LR2 20 for me? It seems that the harder questions appear later in the section which is hurting my LR Score, any strategies to deal with the harder problems? Any help will be greatly appreciated! Please! Thank you!

Best,
Daniel Dion

[Laura Carrier]

Hi Daniel,

From the premises, we know several facts:

* Many workers who handled substance T later became seriously ill.

* Substance T caused at least some of these illnesses.

* If the manufacturer of substance T had investigated its safety prior to the exposure, many of the illnesses would have been prevented.

But then the stimulus makes a leap to the conclusion that earlier ignorance of the connection between substance T and illness doesn’t absolve T’s manufacturer of all responsibility. After reading the premises we know nothing about the manufacturer’s responsibility, or what it would take to absolve the manufacturer of this responsibility, leaving a gap in the argument.

The author seems to think that, if it would have been possible to prevent illnesses caused by T (by investigating T’s safety before allowing workers to be exposed to it), then the manufacturer would still bear some responsibility for the illnesses even if the manufacturer was ignorant of the causal connection at the time of the exposures. Without something like that being true, the conclusion here is seriously weakened by the gap between preventability (which the premises give us) and the conclusion's introduction of responsibility, even in the absence of earlier knowledge.

You are asked to choose a principle (or a general rule that could be applied to these specific facts) that supports the determination made by the conclusion that preventable some responsibility.

Answer choice (A) doesn’t help because the conclusion in the stimulus says nothing about compensation for medical costs (or the kind of responsibility the manufacturer might have). Option (B) doesn’t provide what you need because it offers a way to conclude that a manufacturer is not responsible, the opposite of what the conclusion here needs to support it. Answer choice (C) is irrelevant to our facts, since it concerns health risks of which a manufacturer is aware, and our conclusion is about responsibility even in the absence of earlier awareness. And (D) would actually hurt the conclusion, by telling us that the premise we are trying to link to the conclusion (preventability) is actually irrelevant!

But then answer choice (E) comes along and gives us exactly the kind of general rule we need in order to link responsibility back to preventability: When manufacturers' actions (e.g., allowing exposure to substance T without investigating its safety) harm innocent people (e.g., serious illnesses caused by T), those manufacturers should be held responsible for those consequences (our conclusion) if they were preventable (the final premise). It fits the specific facts of the stimulus perfectly, and links them to the new element of responsibility in the conclusion.

I hope that clarifies things!
Laura

[tcantor92]

The author claims that "EARLIER ignorance does not absolve all responsibility."

Does that claim not still hold the manufacturer accountable during the "early ignorance", not because they were already deemed at fault, but because they didn't investigate?

Conclusion - "Earlier ignorance of the connection between substance T and the workers’ illnesses does not absolve T’s manufacturer of all responsibility."
Answer choice E limits responsibility to only preventable consequences where the stimulus provides evidence that because they didn't investigate is why the manufacturer should be held responsible regardless of the manufacturers ignorance early on.

If same evidence is used to assign responsibility to the manufacturer after the effects of substance T were known was used in a situation where substance T did not cause the illness, the claim that early ignorance does absolve all responsibiluty should still hold if the illnesses were not caused by substance T because the "untimely investigation" is, according to the author, is what would have exposed the illness.

Does that not mean that the manufacturers should be held responsible just because of the lack of proactive efforts?...therefore making the variable of Preventable or Not Preventable irrelevant...

[KelseyWoods]

Hi tcantor92!

The stimulus states that the manufacturer's earlier ignorance does not absolve the manufacturer of all responsibility because if they had investigated, the illnesses would have been prevented. The idea about the illness being preventable is a key component of this argument. We don't know that the author would reach the same conclusion if the illnesses would not have been preventable even if they were investigated. The reason why their earlier ignorance does not absolve them is because an investigation would have prevented the illness.

Answer choice (E) strengthens this argument by telling us that manufacturers should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions that harm innocent people if those consequences were preventable. It's perfectly fine that it limits it to preventable consequences, because we are only trying to strengthen the specific argument we have which is about preventable consequences. If manufacturers should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions if those consequences were preventable, then the manufacturers of substance T should certainly be held responsible for not investigating the safety of T before allowing workers to be exposed to it, because their lack of investigation led to illnesses that could have been prevented.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[tcantor92]

I'm sorry I'm confused.

I understand that "The reason why their earlier ignorance does not absolve them is because an investigation would have prevented (many) the illness."

But as the stimulus tells us, "For had it investigated the safety of T before allowing workers to be exposed to it, many (NOT ALL) of their illnesses would have been prevented."

Because early ignorance does not absolve the manufacturer of ALL responsibility, then it follows that they would still be held responsible even if they had prevented all of the preventable illnesses because they are still being held responsible for the illnesses that were not preventable.

So the manufacturer is being held responsible whether or not the illnesses were prevented or not...(D)

[Frank Peter]

Because early ignorance does not absolve the manufacturer of ALL responsibility, then it follows that they would still be held responsible even if they had prevented all of the preventable illnesses because they are still being held responsible for the illnesses that were not preventable.

When the stimulus mentions "all responsibility", they are talking about the degree of liability that the manufacturer must bear for the diseases related to handling of substance T. Basically, saying that ignorance does not absolve them of all responsibility means that they must still bear some degree of responsibility, even if they claim ignorance, and the principle underlying this is that it's because the illnesses related to handling substance T would have been preventable.

They're not saying that the manufacturer must be responsible for all illnesses, preventable and unpreventable. Keep in mind that at least some of the illnesses the workers are experiencing may be unrelated to substance T - all we know for sure is that a subset of the illnesses are in fact related to substance T, and could have been prevented. And it is that subset of illness that the stimulus is saying the manufacturer should be responsible for.

[cornflakes]

Hi Powerscore,

I understand the reason why E is correct and it was the answer I selected. For a moment I was looking at B as well, as it contained the proper elements just in the mistaken reversal order. I eventually noticed this and ultimately chose E.

I'm wondering, though, if you can elaborate on the first reason provided for why B is wrong. You discuss this discrepancy between "harmful consequences" and just "consequences". Wouldn't "consequences" logically cover "harmful consequences" under its umbrella? For example, if we know that many of the illnesses would have been prevented had they been investigated, and if we know that if there exist preventable consequences (which include harmful consequences), then the manufacturer should be held responsible for them, then that would seem to lead us to conclusion that T's manufacturer inherits some responsibility for those preventable consequences. I understand that B is wrong due to the mistaken reversal - I'm less convinced on the "harmful" semantics reasons provided.

Would appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

Agreed, cornflakes. If this answer had been presented with the correct conditional structure, the absence of "harmful" would not matter. It's only a problem to the extent that we should expect the correct answer to deal with harm since that was an element of the argument, and its absence ought to at least catch our attention and make us hesitate before selecting it. It's a common trap to use terms that are broader or narrower than the ones used in the stimulus, and a broader answer could be a problem in certain scenarios, such as a Must Be True question or some Flaw in the Reasoning questions, for example.

[romankd]

I thought E was wrong because the conclusion is in the sufficient condition. I thought it would've been PREMISE CONCLUSION. And I thought the conclusions could not be activated by the conditional. Could you please explain why and if this AC is an exception?