Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardCausal Flaws and Confounding Variables

Over a three-year period, a logistics firm monitored two regional fulfillment centers: Center X, which implemented an ergonomic workspace redesign featuring adjustable assembly stations and specialized fatigue-reducing flooring, and Center Y, which maintained its standard physical layout. During this period, Center X reported 40 percent fewer worker compensation claims for musculoskeletal exertion than Center Y. Management concluded that the ergonomic workspace redesign was directly responsible for the lower rate of exertion-related claims at Center X.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the management's argument?

  1. A
    Workers at Center Y were informed of the ergonomic upgrades at Center X but did not formally request similar modifications for their own assembly stations.
  2. At the start of the three-year period, Center X replaced its manual heavy-lifting operations with an automated conveyor system, significantly reducing physical exertion for its workers.Answer
  3. C
    Musculoskeletal exertion claims at Center X decreased gradually over the three-year period rather than dropping sharply immediately after the redesign was completed.
  4. D
    Reducing worker compensation claims for musculoskeletal injuries significantly lowers annual operational expenditure for logistics companies.
  5. E
    Ergonomic workspace redesigns in corporate office settings have occasionally failed to produce statistically significant reductions in employee physical complaints.

Answer

The argument is most seriously weakened by revealing that Center X implemented automated conveyor systems at the start of the study, introducing a major confounding variable that offers an alternative explanation for the drop in injury claims.
The correct answer weakens the argument by introducing a major confounding variable. If Center X introduced an automated conveyor system that eliminated heavy manual lifting around the same time as the workspace redesign, this automation provides an independent, highly plausible alternative cause for the 40 percent reduction in musculoskeletal injury claims. Consequently, management cannot attribute the improvement specifically to the ergonomic assembly stations and flooring.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument core
Premise: Center X (ergonomic redesign) had 40% fewer exertion claims than Center Y (no redesign). Conclusion: Ergonomic redesign caused the reduction in exertion claims.
Identifying the author's leap from correlation/observed difference to direct causation is necessary to locate the logical vulnerability.
2
Identify the causal flaw
The argument assumes no other factor differentiated Center X from Center Y during the three-year monitoring period.
Causal conclusions based on comparative observations are vulnerable to third-variable confounders or alternative causes.
3
Evaluate the choices for a confounding variable
The statement regarding the implementation of automated conveyor systems at Center X introduces a concurrent operational change that directly reduces worker physical strain, rendering it impossible to attribute the outcome solely to ergonomic furniture.
An alternative cause that accounts for the observed effect shatters the author's exclusive causal attribution.

Key Concept

Causal Reasoning and Confounding Variables
Rate this question

Topics

Causal Flaws and Confounding Variables

More questions from this topic