#24 - The United States ranks far behind countries such as

[silent7706]

It depends a little on context, silent7706, but for the most part "would" all by itself (as opposed to "would likely" or "some people believe it would") is definite, certain, and absolute. If an author concludes that doing X would result in Y, then that author is completely certain that Y will occur if X occurs. It's guaranteed, in their mind at least.

Note, though, the discussion earlier in this thread about the different standards for a true Must Be True question and a softer Most Strongly Supported question like this one. Can we be absolutely certain that such a change will have the same effect in the U.S.? No. Does it seem likely, based on what we read? Is it a reasonable inference under the circumstances, supported by the information that we have? Yes. That's good enough for this question type, and so A passes that test.

Thank you Adam. I agree while (A) itself is not bulletproof, as you mentioned, it is the most reasonable among the five answers.

[lolaSur]

To what exactly are you referring when you say that question stems containing language such as "most supported" or "which one is supported by the information above" are a sub category of Must Be True questions, with lower standards? (I am referring to Adam M. Tyson's reply).

When you say "lower standard for the answer,"are you referring to the level or broadness or narrowness of the answer, the level of certainty of the answer or something else? Is "soft must be true" the same as could be true? Making the 1 correct answer could be true and 4 incorrect answers cannot be true?

Thank you so much!

For my reference: L3, MBT, 21-25, q22

[Zach Foreman]

Hi, lolaSur

I'm not Adam so I can't speak for him, but I would definitely say that MBT are definitely not the same as could be true. I actually do think A is as bullet proof as it gets outside of formal logic. We have a thing that successfully reduces workplace injuries in a company in America as well as Sweden and Canada. Then we encounter the hypothetical of implementing this successful thing into every company in America. The prediction is that it would reduce workplace injuries. Note, that this seems like it is a sweeping conclusion, but I don't think it is. Let's say that there are 2 million workplace injuries per year and after implementing these committees there are now 1,999,999. Then the prediction is correct. It doesn't specify that the reduction in injuries has to be significant.
Also, it doesn't say that the benefits have to outweigh the drawbacks. Lets say that it reduces injuries by 1 percent but costs billions of dollars and millions of hours to implement. Well, then it likely isn't worth it. BUT, that doesn't matter, the prediction would still be true. So, is there any way it wouldn't work? Doubtful. About the only possibility is that it may work on a voluntary basis but not on a mandatory basis. But it works on a mandatory basis in Sweden and Canada. So, now it would have to not work on a mandatory basis and Canada would have to be so different from the US as to not apply.
So, it is not air tight, but it strikes me as highly plausible and the best of the answers.

[lolaSur]

Thank you for your reply. Would the stimulus here be considered fact based or argument based?

I went back and did this question again. I am breaking it down as follows:

Conclusion: The United States ranks far behind countries such as Sweden and Canada when it comes to workplace safety.
Premise (because): In the U.S those committees are found only in a few companies that have voluntarily established them.
Premise (because): In Sweden and several Canadian provinces, joint safety committees are required by law and exist in all medium-sized and large workplaces.

My first prediction about this stimulus was that the stimulus assumes that in countries where joint committees are legally required the work safety ranks ahead of countries who don’t have these laws.

Going back to this problem now I am noticing words like “few” and “in all” and realizing the assumption of this stimulus has more to do with the number of joint safety committees. Sweden ranks higher in work safety not only because there is a law in place but because the joint safety committees “exist in all medium-sized and large workplaces” whereas in the United States “such committees are found only in the few companies that have voluntarily established them” meaning that not many joint safety committees exist in the U.S.

My prediction should have been that the more joint safety committees that exist in a country’s companies the higher raking in workplace safety that country is. Can you please confirm if this is a correct analysis?

The question stem asks: “which one of the following is supported by the information above?’
I am accepting the stimulus and I have to be skeptical of the answer choices right?

Thank you!

For my reference: L3, MBT, 21-25, q22

[Robert Carroll]

lola,

As noted in the second paragraph of the main explanation of this question, this stimulus is fact-based, because the author never tries to prove anything true. The author's just presenting some facts without trying to shape them into a coherent argument

A comparison beyond the US, Sweden, and Canada is going to be off the mark. The author is not committed to the idea that the committees will work well in all countries, but, since the relevant difference between Sweden and Canada, on the one hand, and the US, on the other, is the ubiquity of the committees, it's reasonable to infer that the author thinks the US would become more like Sweden and Canada in safety if it were also more like them in how widespread the committees are.

Your analysis about the correlation between safety and committees is reasonable.

The question stem is indeed in the First Family, so you're trusting the stimulus and being skeptical of answer choices.

Robert Carroll

[dshen123]

Can someone please explain, how past success (sentence 2) can guarantee future ones(answer A)? Does “Will result in” mean events that have not occurred therefore we have no grounds to predict the likelihood of a reduction in occupational injuries?