to the top

#7 - In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the

lsat2016
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 11:39 pm
Points: 10

Nikki Siclunov wrote:Of course, anything is possible - which is precisely why answer choice (E) is incorrect.

Thanks,


Ok! So does the fact that an answer choice is ambiguous a valid reason for eliminating an answer choice?
Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:31 am
Points: 1,208

If the implications of the answer are ambiguous, i.e. if the answer choice can either weaken or strengthen the argument depending on other, unknown factors, then yes - I'd say this is a good reason to eliminate it.

Thanks!
Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Test Preparation
lsat2016
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 11:39 pm
Points: 10

Nikki Siclunov wrote:If the implications of the answer are ambiguous

Thanks!



Hello,

Thank you so much for your quick responses!! I had a similar question regarding PT 71 section 1 #12 that I posted to this forum and I would be so thankful if you could answer it!!

Thanks
chian9010
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:02 pm
Points: 80

Nikki Siclunov wrote:Hi lsat2016,

Welcome to the Forum!! :-D

There is no reason to suspect that (A) weakens the argument. The argument is essentially causal: the author observes a decrease in likelihood of serious injury since 1955, which coincides with the introduction of the new legislation. From this, the author concludes that the new legislation was responsible for the increased worker safety:

    ..... ..... ..... Cause ..... ..... Effect

    ..... New Legislation :arrow: Increased safety

This may be so, but answer choice (A) presents an alternative cause: technological innovation! This is an alternative cause that could easily explain the increased worker safety, weakening the argument.

Answer choice (E), by contrast, has no relation to this causal argument. Maybe workplace safety conditions have improved across all industries - so what? This could be the result of the same legislation that the author believes improved worker safety in the high-risk industries. If anything, since the legislation does not appear to target high-risk industries in particular, answer choice (E) can easily be interpreted as strengthening the conclusion of the argument.

Hope this helps!


I understand why A is the correct answer. However, if we assume E is talking about global industries (Not only within the certain country). Would this answer choice choice weaken the argument?
Brook Miscoski
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:38 am
Points: 388

Chian,

Changing the answer in the way you suggest does not weaken the claim that the explanation in that country is its legislative changes, especially since that could be the explanation in the other countries as well.
lsacgals101
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:19 pm
Points: 15

Nikki Siclunov wrote:Of course! We just don't know what was responsible for the observed effect. All answer choice (E) shows is that the observed effect is even more extensive than what the stimulus seems to suggest. This could be due to a host of reasons, none of which are presented in answer choice (E). It's entirely possible that, since the legislation's intended coverage wasn't limited to high-risk industries, the observed improvement across all industries resulted from that legislation. Of course, anything is possible - which is precisely why answer choice (E) is incorrect. Even if you don't see it as a Strengthen answer, it surely doesn't weaken the argument.

Thanks,



Hi,
I understand what you're saying about E. But having trouble forgetting about my original interpretation, which is that answer E is an alternate cause type answer... if workplace conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955... perhaps something caused this change (in all industries) and therefore, also caused the overall increase in safety in high risk industry, rather than the government's increased control having caused it. Could you help me understand why my thinking is wrong?
George George
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:42 am
Points: 24

@lsacgals101

(E) is a vague answer, for all the reasons stated above. While it tells you there's been a positive effect on the work environment, you don't know how, and while you could read it as being possibly something other than the recent legislation, there's not enough information for you to do so. It's equally likely that the government has been passing legislation in other areas besides the "high risk industries." Answer choices like (E) which "sit on the fence" and don't really tell you specifically one way or the other are vague and incorrect. You cannot assess their impact (though you may be tempted, by making additional assumptions, to infer an impact that is not really warranted). In general, on a Weakener Q with a Cause-and-Effect argument, you should expect the right answer to be explicit enough for you spot the connection you need in order to provide an alternate cause. That's what (A) does that (E) fails to do.

Don't feel bad. These kinds of answers on Weakener and Strengthen Qs are some of the hardest traps -- because they're so tempting to argue for!