A company claims that its new safety training reduces workplace accidents by 40%. The company argues that the training should be adopted for all employees.

Study for the Logical Reasoning STEM Test. Practice with flashcards and multiple-choice questions, each with hints and explanations. Prepare for success!

The main idea being tested is how we judge whether a result will hold up beyond a single study or location—that is, how well the finding generalizes to different settings. To justify rolling out a safety training to all employees, you need evidence that the benefit isn’t limited to one plant or another specific situation.

Seeing the training reduce accidents by 40% in three other plants provides powerful, concrete proof that the effect persists across different environments, workforces, and safety cultures. This cross-site replication shows the result is not just a fluke of one location, making it more reasonable to expect similar gains throughout the company. That kind of repeated, independent confirmation strengthens the case for a company-wide adoption.

The other options don’t offer the same strength of support. A higher cost raises a practical hurdle but doesn’t speak to effectiveness or generalizability. A reduction in near-miss incidents is helpful for safety awareness, but it’s not the same as demonstrating a real decrease in actual accidents. Evidence outside the trial can be persuasive, but without multiple sites showing the same outcome, it’s weaker than seeing the effect replicated across several plants.