PT1 S4 Q6

TunnelVision
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:12 pm

PT1 S4 Q6

Postby TunnelVision » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:43 pm

This is a must be true question. I am just not seeing why D is correct. I would understand if it said to be the MOST successful economy... or if it kept the first part but said Europe SHOULD train more people... Where in the stimulus does it say that training people in the new technologies is a prerequisite for becoming a more (not the most) successful economy?

I picked C. I was weary of the depends upon. How else can this choice be eliminated?

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby Geetar Man » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:07 am

TunnelVision wrote:This is a must be true question. I am just not seeing why D is correct. I would understand if it said to be the MOST successful economy... or if it kept the first part but said Europe SHOULD train more people... Where in the stimulus does it say that training people in the new technologies is a prerequisite for becoming a more (not the most) successful economy?

I picked C. I was weary of the depends upon. How else can this choice be eliminated?


As you stated, must be true question. The answer will contain something that can be logically inferred from the stimulus.

A- Wrong, because we don't know what shortages exist and cant logically infer that it does; and the passage doesn't talk about it.

B- Wrong, because again, we don't know whether Japan is not the best country against which to measure economic success. We certainly can't infer that it isn't, based on the stimulus either.

C- Wrong, because we don't know what Japan's economy depends upon. We certainly can't infer that their economy depends upon a narrow base of highly skilled labor, since the stimulus makes no implications of such a thing.

D- Correct, because the stimulus states that the most successful economies train as many people possible in the human skills required for research to develop and apply new technology. Next, it also states that Europe is in a weaker position because it has a shortage of such people.
SO, we can logically infer that (as the answer states) to be economically MORE successful, Europe needs to train more people to develop and apply new technology.

E- Wrong, because again, we don't know how successful other economies are. Nonetheless, we don't know exactly have successful the European economies are in which this answer choice attempts to compare to..

To touch base with your question about the phrase depends upon: The stimulus tells us a characteristic of the most successful economies, which is that the most successful economies train as many people possible in the human skills required for research to develop and apply new technology. It does NOT say what Japan's economy is dependent upon. It could be the case that Japan's economy does depend on a narrow base of highly skilled labor, but the stimulus gives us NO reason to believe so.

Hope that helps!

TunnelVision
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:12 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby TunnelVision » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:08 am

Thanks for the explanation! The distinction I was getting at was this: okay, I see that Europe isn't as successful as Japan because they have a shortage of highly skilled people, but it doesn't say ONLY because of this. Thus, there can be many other ways Europe can become a MORE successful economy, not necessarily the most successful of course, but D doesn't say most. For this reason, I still do not understand just yet why in order to become more successful, Europe must train more people in new tech. I definitely see how that is sufficient, but how is it necessary according to the stim? I am clearly missing something key here.

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby Geetar Man » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:41 pm

TunnelVision wrote:Thanks for the explanation! The distinction I was getting at was this: okay, I see that Europe isn't as successful as Japan because they have a shortage of highly skilled people, but it doesn't say ONLY because of this. Thus, there can be many other ways Europe can become a MORE successful economy, not necessarily the most successful of course, but D doesn't say most. For this reason, I still do not understand just yet why in order to become more successful, Europe must train more people in new tech. I definitely see how that is sufficient, but how is it necessary according to the stim? I am clearly missing something key here.



The claim that Europe's economy isn't AS successful as Japan doesnt matter bro, nor is any other reason for it NOT being as successful. The other ways that Europe can become successful doesn't matter either, because the stimulus doesn't mention other ways or more specifically, give us other ways that it can be more successful.

What we DO know is what the stimulus gives us (we must assume that the argument is true), and that's:

1) Japan has a successful (in general) economy because it has more trained people to develop and apply new technology.
2) The most successful economies train as many people possible in the human skills required for research to develop and apply new technology.
3) (Inference)An economy can be more successful/strengthened if it had more trained people to develop and apply new technology.

4) Europe's economy is not as successful as it could be and therefore (we can infer) that it CAN be strengthened... But how?

Based on the stimulus, and evidence that another economy (Japan) is successful because they have people who can develop and apply new technology, we can infer that other economies can follow suit and be more successful.

5) THERFORE, we can logically infer that Europe's economy can be MORE successful if they train people to develop and apply new technology. This basically reflects what is said in answer choice D.

P.s, this is not a necessary/sufficient question, so we arent questioning whether it's sufficient or not. All we are trying to do is find the answer choice that MUST BE TRUE, based on the claims made in the stimulus.

For must be true questions, if you find yourself saying, "well, that could be true", then you should probably move on to a different answer choice where you can say, "That must be true, based on the information in the stimulus."


HTH!

TunnelVision
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:12 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby TunnelVision » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:11 pm

5) THERFORE, we can logically infer that Europe's economy can be MORE successful if they train people to develop and apply new technology. This basically reflects what is said in answer choice D.

This is the problem I have... what you said is: train more people----> more successful

I understand how that can be inferred, but D says this: more successful----> train more people

The suff/nec conditions are reversed and that is why I do not understand why D is right. Where in the stimulus does it say:

For Europe to be more successful---> Europe NEEDS (not just could) to train more people.

All I see is this:

If Europe trains more people----> it will be more successful.

and

To be among the MOST (not just more) successful---> must train as many people as possible in the new tech.

Can anyone shed some light on this distinction and where my reasoning went awry?

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby Geetar Man » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:40 pm

TunnelVision wrote:5) THERFORE, we can logically infer that Europe's economy can be MORE successful if they train people to develop and apply new technology. This basically reflects what is said in answer choice D.

This is the problem I have... what you said is: train more people----> more successful

I understand how that can be inferred, but D says this: more successful----> train more people

The suff/nec conditions are reversed and that is why I do not understand why D is right. Where in the stimulus does it say:

For Europe to be more successful---> Europe NEEDS (not just could) to train more people.

All I see is this:

If Europe trains more people----> it will be more successful.

and

To be among the MOST (not just more) successful---> must train as many people as possible in the new tech.

Can anyone shed some light on this distinction and where my reasoning went awry?


Dude, I'm pretty sure the answer choice doesnt change the necessary and sufficient conditions. They stay the same, but are just stated in reverse.

The stimulus says: train people ---> more successful.

The answer choice says: Europe to train people ----> to be more successful. (Just backwards)

This question was easy bro, from the fact that the other answer choices could be eliminated on the basis of being out of scope, leaving you with this contender. IDK, I GOT IT RIGHT! lol

TunnelVision
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:12 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby TunnelVision » Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:20 pm

Lol I understand that the other answer choices could be eliminated, but in the interest of fully understanding the choices I am just curious about D. My problem is with the word 'needs' which introduces a necessary condition, and 'to be' introduces a sufficient condition. Obviously, I am analyzing the hell out of this but I am genuinely curious now. Like I said, I would totally understand this if D said: To be economically more successful, Europe COULD/SHOULD train more people in the new technologies. I just do not get why this is something they NEED to do in order to be more successful. I will try to look at this with a fresh perspective later, but in the meantime, could anyone else provide some insight?

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby Geetar Man » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:32 pm

IMO, I don't think the word need, in this instance, indicates a necessary condition. I hope someone else is willing to chime in on this.

I could see your point if the word was "unless", but need's meaning in this instance is =/= unless. Hence why I don't believe it indicates a necessary condition. SOMEONE!!!!!!!!

TunnelVision
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:12 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby TunnelVision » Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:39 pm

That would be strange if 'needs' did not introduce the necessary condition. Anyone???

User avatar
pizzabrosauce
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby pizzabrosauce » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:06 am

Okay so first of all (and i think this is what Geetar was referring to): A,B,C, & E are egregiously wrong. The LSAT is just as much about identifying why Wrongs are Wrong as why Rights are Right.

But yea, in terms of why D is right:

The first sentence is a causal statement. More training -> More success

Answer D: Europe needs [More training -> More success] ful

Let me know if this is still confusing.

TunnelVision
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:12 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby TunnelVision » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:16 pm

I understand the other answers suck. I just do not understand why the word "needs" does not introduce a necessary condition in D. So, what follows needs in this case is really the sufficient condition?

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby Geetar Man » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:23 pm

pizzabrosauce wrote:Okay so first of all (and i think this is what Geetar was referring to): A,B,C, & E are egregiously wrong. The LSAT is just as much about identifying why Wrongs are Wrong as why Rights are Right.

But yea, in terms of why D is right:

The first sentence is a causal statement. More training -> More success

Answer D: Europe needs [More training -> More success] ful

Let me know if this is still confusing.



They are causal statements, not conditionals. The answer choice is a causal inference, not a conditional inference. This was basically the point I was trying to make.

TunnelVision
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:12 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby TunnelVision » Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:27 pm

Even if it is a causal inference, my question remains. Why is it NECESSARY that they train more people to become more successful? The stim doesn't exclude other possibilities, so we only know that training more people is sufficent to cause more success, but we do not know it is necessary, so if that is the case then they are simply assuming that training more people is the only way to become more successful, and that is what I do not understand with this problem (causal/conditional relationships aside).

User avatar
pizzabrosauce
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby pizzabrosauce » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:37 pm

"The most successful (have been, and will continue to be) those that train as many as possible."

Most successful indicates training as many as possible

Success -> Training

(I originally chose to think of it as a causal statement, in which case the stated cause is the one and only cause, training would be necessary and sufficient in that case)

TunnelVision
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:12 pm

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby TunnelVision » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:35 pm

I guess I just didn't even consider it to be a causal argument, but after reviewing it in that way it makes more sense. Although how were you guys able to determine that it was a causal argument rather than just conditional If the author states a cause in a MBT question then don't we have to assume that the author believes that to be the ONLY cause to achieve that effect? Thanks guys!

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: PT1 S4 Q6

Postby Geetar Man » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:58 pm

TunnelVision wrote:I guess I just didn't even consider it to be a causal argument, but after reviewing it in that way it makes more sense. Although how were you guys able to determine that it was a causal argument rather than just conditional If the author states a cause in a MBT question then don't we have to assume that the author believes that to be the ONLY cause to achieve that effect? Thanks guys!



Honestly, the way you reasoned through it (thinking about necessary/sufficient) isn't what I thought of. You're supposed to take all of whats stated in the stimulus as true, and use that to show that one of the answer choices must be true.

If this were a weaken question, I guess you could weaken the argument by finding ANOTHER way to have a successful economy, but this is not what the question is asking. I do think it's good that you're noticing things like that though, because it's important to understand/analyze arguments and is helpful when you can spot weaknesses, such as what you did in this question. But remember, you need to focus on what the question is asking you, for doing so will help eliminate answer choices that are out of scope. Good luck with your studies!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, BobBoblaw, cherrygalore, earldasquirel, Google [Bot], laqueredup, Pomegranate27 and 19 guests