LSAT Explanation PT 24, S3, Q22: Letter to the editor: After Baerton's

LSAT Question Stem

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT: 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this LSAT problem, we have a Weaken-Except question. The passage presents an argument that claims most of the factory's former employees who filed for job-related injury compensation after the factory closed were just trying to gain benefits they did not deserve. Our task is to identify the answer choice that does NOT weaken this argument.

Let's first analyze the argument's structure. The premise is that there was a sharp increase in the number of claims filed for job-related injury compensation by the factory's former employees after the factory closed. The conclusion is that most of those who filed for compensation after the factory closed were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there any other reason for the increase in claims filed after the factory closed?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices:

a) This answer choice weakens the argument by providing an alternate reason for the increase in claims after the factory closed: workers cannot file for compensation for certain job-related injuries until they have left the job. This suggests that the increase in claims might be due to the fact that workers were only able to file for compensation after the factory closed, rather than trying to gain undeserved benefits.

b) This answer choice also weakens the argument by providing another alternate reason for the increase in claims after the factory closed: the factory's managers had previously dismissed employees who had filed injury claims. This suggests that workers might have delayed filing their claims out of fear of dismissal, and only filed after the factory closed when there was no longer a risk of losing their jobs.

c) The correct answer is C, as it does not weaken the argument. If most workers who receive an injury on the job file for compensation on the day they suffer the injury, it strengthens the author's conclusion that those who filed after the factory closed were trying to gain undeserved benefits. This answer choice suggests that the workers who filed claims after the factory closed might be different from the majority of workers who file for compensation on the day of the injury.

d) This answer choice weakens the argument by providing yet another alternate reason for the increase in claims after the factory closed: workers with partial disabilities due to job-related injuries might not have filed for compensation while they were still working because they couldn't afford to live on the compensation alone. However, after the factory closed, they might have decided to file for compensation as it was better than receiving nothing.

e) This answer choice weakens the argument by suggesting that workers who were aware of the upcoming layoff might have become depressed, making them more prone to job-related injuries. This implies that the increase in claims after the factory closed could be due to a genuine increase in injuries, rather than workers trying to gain undeserved benefits.

In summary, answer choice C is the correct answer because it does not weaken the argument. The other answer choices provide alternate reasons for the increase in claims after the factory closed, which weakens the author's conclusion that most of those who filed for compensation were just out to gain benefits they did not deserve.