LR Double Negation, PT 35, Sec. 4 #21

barrydukakis
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:55 pm

LR Double Negation, PT 35, Sec. 4 #21

Postby barrydukakis » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:08 pm

First LR problem in awhile I've gotten wrong and not been able to immediately see an error.

Premise "for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology...tend to undermine the values in that social system"

Answer C: Confused because it doesn't matter if the social system is not susceptible to change.... premise says ANY social system can be undermined?

Answer C: Getting rid of the double negation seems to provide the right answer....

Help?

Also, I seem to remember Double Negations being in the LR logic bible, anyone care to point me in the right direction?

barrydukakis
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: LR Double Negation, PT 35, Sec. 4 #21

Postby barrydukakis » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:02 pm

Anyone?

ND'10
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:46 am

Re: LR Double Negation, PT 35, Sec. 4 #21

Postby ND'10 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:07 pm

BUMP

delusional
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: LR Double Negation, PT 35, Sec. 4 #21

Postby delusional » Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:25 pm

barrydukakis wrote:First LR problem in awhile I've gotten wrong and not been able to immediately see an error.

Premise "for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology...tend to undermine the values in that social system"

Answer C: Confused because it doesn't matter if the social system is not susceptible to change.... premise says ANY social system can be undermined?

Answer C: Getting rid of the double negation seems to provide the right answer....

Help?

Also, I seem to remember Double Negations being in the LR logic bible, anyone care to point me in the right direction?

It seems like process of elimination should work pretty well, although I understand your reservations with the correct answer as well.

I think the explanation is that since any society WOULD change when confronted with labor-saving technology, there must be another reason why this society can't be. The wording is (the society) would not be one in which technology can eliminate economic roles. Why not? Well, if technology would be available to theoretically reduce labor, it WOULD change the social roles. So it's up to you to imagine why this society can't have such technology. Maybe it's against the law, or not wired for electricity. The point is, if technology COULD change roles, society WOULD be open to change. This society ISN'T open to change, ergo, due to whatever circumstance, technology ain't comin'.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackmamba8, goldenbear2020, mathis1490, Mockingbird42, nimbus cloud, somedeadman, SunDevil14 and 34 guests