Industry experts expect improvements in job safety training to lead to safer work environments. A recent survey indic...

on December 18, 2018

Why is B correct

I donâ€™t understand why B is the correct answer for this one

1 Reply

Ravi on December 19, 2018


From the stimulus, we know that for manufacturers who improve job safety training in the 1980s, the number of on-the-job accidents tended to increase in the months immediately following the changes in the training programs.

However, we also know that industry experts expect improvements in job safety training to lead to safer work environments.

That seems odd. Why might there be more accidents?

Answer (A) doesn't help us resolve the discrepancy in the stimulus. We don't care about what's going on in the transportation industry.

Answer (B) is exactly what we're looking for; it helps us resolve the discrepancy. If this were the case, then it the paradox makes more sense. Even if work conditions are safer (let's say the accident rate has decreased from 10% to 5%), what if the manufacturers have increased the size of their workforce tenfold? With this scenario, we could have 10 people working with a 10% accident rate, so only 1 person was getting hurt. However, with the new, safer job safety training, the rate becomes 5%. Yet, because there are now 100 people working, 5 people are getting hurt. This example articulates how the discrepancy could exist and why (B) is exactly the answer we want.

(C) doesn't explain anything about the discrepancy. Even if it were true, it doesn't explain why the accident rate is still climbing after the implementation of improved job safety training.

(D) just says that this wasn't random. O.K...we still don't know why the paradox is happening. This does nothing for us.

(E) gives us some background info, but it still does nothing to tell us why the accidents are rising after improved job safety training has been implemented.

Let us know if you have more questions!