Q6 - Economist: There have been large declines in employment

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Explain a Result EXCEPT

Stimulus Breakdown:
No argument here, so we just need to get the facts straight: the number of workers injured on the job has decreased, which is unsurprising because the total number of workers has decreased, too. What is surprising is that the percent of workers injured on the job has also decreased.

Answer Anticipation:
This question is testing your understanding of numbers, proportions, and how they relate. A decrease in the total number of workers explains a decrease in the total number of workers injured on the job, but it doesn't explain a decrease in the percent of workers injured on the job. Since this is an Except question, we should anticipate wrong answers that provide possible explanations, like increased safety regulations, that would protect workers on the job site. We should expect a correct answer that either has no impact on the situation, or that makes the reduction in percentage of workers injured all the more surprising. We should also be prepared for wrong answers that are a little iffy. The question stem here says "each of the following helps to explain...except." That means that if an answer helps at all, it's wrong. It doesn't have to fully explain the situation.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Could fewer work hours mean fewer on site injuries? Sure, that seems reasonable. Is it a great explanation? No, so you might defer on this one on your first pass. But ultimately, it could help to explain, so it's incorrect.

(B) Could reduce pressure to meet quotas and deadlines mean fewer on site injuries? Like A, it seems reasonable but also a little iffy. Another good one to defer on, but one that is ultimately incorrect as well.

(C) This is a solid elimination. If the most dangerous industries are losing workers at a higher rate than safer jobs, no wonder the proportion of injured workers is decreasing.

(D) Could fewer resources devoted to worker safety mean fewer on site injuries? No way: that would probably have the opposite effect. That makes this the correct answer.

(E) Could fewer inexperienced workers mean fewer on site injuries? Sure. Like A and B, this seems reasonable enough.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Explain a Result EXCEPT questions are tricky because the threshold to be an incorrect answer is really different than the threshold to be a correct answer in a regular Explain a Result question. If this wasn't an Except question, A, B and E wouldn't meet the threshold for a correct answer. That's OK! You have to judge by different standards. For Except questions, any possible contribution to the explanation is grounds for dismissal.

#officialexplanation