#22 - Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence

[andrewb22]

After reviewing this question I understand why (E) is correct, but why is (A) incorrect?

[Robert Carroll]

Andrew,

Answer choice (A) is not saying laborers and office workers spend similar time sitting. It says they spend similar time sitting at home. Office workers would then still have extra time sitting in the office that laborers probably don't, so it's just the same situation as the stimulus.

Robert Carroll

[gwlsathelp]

Answer choice (C) says that people who do strenuous physical work are encouraged to use techniques to lessen the effect on their backs. Does that impact a relationship between office workers, office equipment, and back pain? It addresses a way to reduce back pain in other situations, but not in the situation in the stimulus.

Looking back at this question, I can see how answer choice C could support the conclusion. If the workers are "encouraged", then that encouragement had to come from somewhere (like upper management) and is analogous to optimization of chairs and computer screen angles.

This question is a bit of a doozy as it plays on an assumption already had: that people who lift heavy objects/physical work that places a lot of stress on the back have high numbers of injuries; but the correct answer choice E weakens by removing the incidence.

I narrowed my choices to C and E, and selected C.

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer C is that, while it could help to explain why people doing the heavy lifting are getting fewer injuries than they otherwise would, it tells us nothing about what is or is not causing the injuries to the folks who work sitting in offices. There's no alternate cause for their injuries, or for the difference in the incidence of injuries between the two groups. It could still be that their furniture is the culprit! Answer E tells us about a difference in the two groups: one group is doing things that help to prevent injuries while the other group is doing much less of that thing, if any.

[ashpine17]

So C is incorrect because we don't know if these workers are actually taking the encouragement to heart and are actually using these measures to reduce the degree of stress and it could be that office workers are also taking some sort of preventative measures to reduce the risk of back injuries but are still suffering higher rates of back injuries. E is correct because it points out that the key difference between the workers (amount of physical activity) accounts for the different rates of lower back injuries which weakens the idea that it is the furniture causing the problem for the office workers so this is an alternative cause type answer.

[Mancini1999]

I understand why the choice (C) is wrong, but why is choice (D) wrong for this question?

[Adam Tyson]

Answer D doesn't weaken the argument because it doesn't explain why the office workers have more of these injuries than physical laborers, Mancini1999. In fact, it might strengthen the argument a little bit by showing that most of the time the injuries are NOT being caused by something outside of work, like while they are raking leaves or playing golf. If the author wants to blame the furniture and equipment at work, and they are mostly injured at work, that helps! Beware of answers that do he exact opposite of what you are being asked to do, as that is a common trap set for us by the test makers.

[DaveWave24]

I think that in order to see the difference between answers C and E it’s really important to understand what the function of the phrase “heavy stresses on the lower back” is in the stimulus. The whole first sentence is a premise there to convince the reader that the injuries to office workers are unusual. When it brings up the laborers who have “heavy stresses” on their back, the reader is meant to think: heavy stresses? That must mean they get a ton of injuries. And the office workers get even more than that?

The problem though is that we can’t assume heavy stresses are actually going to cause injuries. If you think about people who go to the gym regularly, they are putting stress on their muscles in order to get in better shape. I’m not an exercise expert, but it’s reasonable to think that people who are in good shape get less injuries than the average person. This idea is what answer choice E gets at- the laborers who are doing physical work that puts stress on their lower back actually benefit from that. If this were true then the argument no longer makes any sense- office workers getting more injuries than a group of people who get few injuries doesn’t imply that there is any problem, so it doesn’t make sense to suggest a cause. The only assumption that we need to make for answer E is that “regular physical work” matches up with “consistent physical exercise”, and these things are essentially synonyms.

Answer C seems to be heading in the same direction as answer E but it’s much weaker for two reasons. First, reducing the amount of stress doesn’t go nearly as far as saying that those stresses are associated with less injuries. If we were to go back in the stimulus and replace “heavy stresses” with “some stresses”, the contrast between the office workers and the laborers is less striking but the question is still the same- why are the office workers getting more injuries than a group of people we might think gets a lot of injuries? The second problem with answer C is that it isn’t even guaranteeing the effect that we just described- it only says they are “encouraged to use techniques”. Does that mean the laborers are actually doing those things? Or maybe it means that their bosses notice this huge problem and that’s their way of making it look like they are handling the issue.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Dave,

I don't think the argument needs to connect those two ideas. Consistent physical exercise is different than physical work which is known to place heavy stresses on the back. And, as you correctly point out, we don't really care as much about the laborers in this situation. We need to focus on the office workers for this question, because the office workers are the key to the conclusion.

In fact, it could easily be that those doing the sorts of physical work does cause substantial lower back injury, but that the office workers still have a higher rate of injury. The only thing we need for this question is to recognize that answer choice (E) gives us that alternate cause---the way to promote the lower back health of those office workers is not to change the office furniture, but to provide regular physical activity.

Good work!