#4 - Industry experts expect improvements in job safety

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (B)

The author of this stimulus asks why manufacturers who improved their safety programs saw increases in the number accidents after implementing the new programs. The correct answer choice will likely present an additional factor that might lead to accident increases.

Answer choice (A): The results experienced in another sector do not explain this paradox, and those referenced in this choice simply lead to a similar paradox—why did they not see accidents decrease?

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, presenting an additional factor that played into the scenario presented. If the employers were adding to their workforce at around the same time as implementing the new programs, this would explain why they might see increases in accidents—more workers.

Answer choice (C): Since the manufacturers referenced in the stimulus saw the increases after the new programs were implemented, this information does not help to resolve the apparent discrepancy and thus cannot be the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (D): If the results could be explained as a random fluctuation, then that would actually resolve the paradox. Since this choice rules out that possibility, the paradox remains, and this choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): If significant measures were in place before the study, this might explain why the no programs could bring no change, but fails to explain why the new, improved safety programs would be followed by an increase in the number of on-the-job accidents.

[LSAT2020]

I'm still a little confused about why "C" is an incorrect answer choice. Is it because this was repeating something that was already establish as fact in the premise? When I re-read the stimulus, the second sentence (second clause) seemed to state the same thing as answer choice C. Am I misunderstanding this? Would greatly appreciate someone's help in clarifying this gap in my understanding.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi LSAT2020,

Our main paradox is that the number of on-the-job accidents increases immediately after improved job safety training. The problem with answer choice (C) is that it talks about a different time period. It talks about the accident numbers BEFORE the safety training, which doesn't help to explain the accident numbers after the training. It's a bit of a trap answer---it talks about similar ideas to those in the stimulus, but not quite the same ones.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[LSATQUEEN180]

Resolve the discrepancy or I like to call it "fill the gap." Because essentially that is what you are doing. when it comes to these types of questions, there is always a leap from the premises to the conclusion and more than often the correct answer "fills that gap."

First let''s figure out what the stimulus is saying; what is the main point and conclusion?

improvements in JS --> safer work environment
improvements in JS--> accidents increased

They are saying that they want to improve job safety by adding in a safer work environment; however, whenever there are improvements, the number of accidents increase. WHY IS THAT?

Before looking at the answer choices, we should think about what the answer could be. but sometimes nothing comes to mind, like for me, nothing has come to mind. therefore, do not spend another minute trying to figure it out and just go straight to the answer choices with the discrepancy in mind " why whenever there are improvements, the number of accidents increases."

A. After JS training, the number of accidents was constant.
this answer choice does not explain the discrepancy; in fact, we are looking for an answer choice that deals with accidents increasing, not remaining constant.

B. Improve JS when they increase workforce
This could answer the discrepancy because if they are increasing the number of people then the number of accidents could possibly increase with it.

C. Improve JS after accidents increase (this is actually saying "when there is an accident they improve job safety")
This answer is a reversal. I came up with the following: " why whenever there are improvements, the number of accidents increases." and this choice reverses it. Making it wrong.

D. this answer is just wrong. it doesn't explain why whenever there are improvements, the number of accidents increases.

E. Again, I would say issue as D.

B is the best answer.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi LSATQUEEN180,

While I like your approach to these questions in general, I do want to clarify one important point (for you and other students who may read this thread).

Resolve the Paradox questions generally do not contain arguments. They are one of the few question types in which the stimulus almost always contains a set of factual statements. (The other major question type that usually does not contain an argument is Must Be True questions. Cannot Be True questions also generally do not contain an argument, but they are rare in Logical Reasoning.)

Resolve the Paradox stimuli generally present two facts that, on the surface, seem odd that they would both be true. The correct answer will provide new information that explains how both statements can both be true at the same time.

Here, the first "fact" is that improved job safety training leads to safer work environments. (Technically it's just the opinion of the industry experts, but we can take it as "fact" for the purpose of this question.)

The second fact is that when manufacturers improved job safety training they had more accidents rather than less (which would be expected.)

All we want for a prephrase is some other cause for the increase in the number of accidents unrelated to the job safety training. You don't have to get more specific than that. For example, maybe they introduced new equipment that was more dangerous around the same time. Maybe the employees aren't getting enough sleep for some reason or are sick (like in a pandemic) and this making it difficult to concentrate and is causing them to make careless errors, etc..

Answer B (simply having more employees) is just one of many possible ways to explain this discrepancy.