PrepTest 16, Section 2, Question 10 - "Eliminate" Forum

[BigA]

I have a serious beef with this question. The key phrase is: "Therefore robots will not eliminate demeaning work."

The #1 definition on merriamwebster for eliminate is "to put an end to or get rid of : remove, eradicate".

I gave (E) a lot of thought before eliminating it because I thought this reasoning by the author was sound. There would still be some demeaning work so robots would not eliminate (put an end to) it.

Anyone agree/disagree? I've never felt so strongly after a question that I was right and the LSAT and Kaplan explanation is wrong. How can I protest this answer from 1995? I want my PT score raised one point

[Atlas LSAT Brian]

This question is hard because the correct answer is pretty terrible, though on close consideration, it's definitely the best of the five choices. (Honestly, I wouldn't sweat this one too much, if for nothing else because I think the LSAT has gotten a lot better in the 40 tests since this one, and to see a question with this bad of an answer is quite unlikely these days)

Now, since we are looking for a logical flaw, we must find the conclusion and the premise(s).

The conclusion is:
Robots will not eliminate demeaning work -- only substitute one type of demeaning work for another.

The evidence on which this conclusion is based is:
Engineers are only designing robots that can be properly maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible.

Now, when I first read this question, I thought the most obvious flaw was the assumption that "least expensive...least skilled" was equivalent to "demeaning." This, to me, would've been a better correct answer.

(A) out of scope. way out.
(B) tempting. Actually, though, this is untrue. The author does not assume that robots create demeaning work - the author provides an example of how that work is needed to maintain robots. Therefore, it's stated, not assumed.
(C) doesn't matter how the engineers feel about their jobs.
(D) way out of scope.
(E) Consider this answer choice. IF it is true that the amount of demeaning work eliminated by the robots is GREATER than the amount they create, the conclusion (that robots will not eliminate demeaning work) is clearly false -- the sum total of demeaning work in the world will have decreased because of the robots. Will demeaning work still exist? Possibly. That means the robots didn't eliminate ALL the demeaning work, though with simple math, one can see they eliminated SOME demeaning work.

I can see where you got tangled up with "eliminate," but ultimately the word "eliminate" does not mean "eliminate ALL." When you hear that GE is "eliminating jobs," it doesn't mean they fired EVERYONE and closed up shop for good. It means there are now fewer jobs at GE than before.

[r6_philly]

Actually E is the perfect answer if you treat "subsitute" as a "perfect substitue". If you assume "substitue" as replacing a set amount of demeaning work with another type of demeaning work of the same amount. In math, substitution require that the 2 items are interchangable and equal. If the amounts of work are not equal, then the conclusion is false because it only describes a "partial replacement" instead of an actual "substitution".

Maybe because I am math and CS minded

[Shrimps]

I agree, the question is pretty straightforward.

The conclusion is faulty: it considers substitution and elimination as the only two options ("robots will not eliminate work - only substitute one.. for another")

This is a false dilemma, which is invariably covered in materials on informal logic flaws. (E) addresses it.

How'd you lose a point on this one? What other answer choice looked even remotely valid?

[r6_philly]

the other answers are bad. I was actually expecting to see "it assumes that the new work created by the robots will be demeaning" which would be the easy answer but it wasn't there. Everything else is faulty.

[nickm100]

r6, would you mind explaining why (B) is not a good answer?

[r6_philly]

certainly.

It is not suppose to prove that robots create demeaning work. the conclusion is that robots will only substitue one form of demeaning work for another kind. So while the passage did assume what B states, it is not trying to prove it. So B is faulty. If B had stated only "assumes that robots create demeaning work" then maybe this question would have been successufully challenged. There is a bit of trickery in this one because B contains the right idea but doesn't apply to the stimulus.

[nickm100]

Right. Thanks R6. Your explanation is the only explanation I could come to after the fact but it just seems deceptive. I had it down to B and E and went with B because I was searching for an answer close to an assumption about demeaning work.

[r6_philly]

B was my first choice. But on second glance it was wrong. I think we were doing the same thing, we formulate a "correct" answer, then search for similar answers, only this one looks right but is not. Then we have to look for another one. Many people probably don't get past B because looks right, and E doesn't really look any better than B, so people sticks with first choice.

When I was prepping I wrote my answers in a notebook and cross out my first choice in a situation like this. Overtime I realized that I was getting better at spotting tricks. On the real test I think I overruled myself 4-5 times, I'd like to think I got them right. (If not then I would had a 175 )

Prepbooks always tell you to look at all 5 answers before deciding, I think they are right. This seem cut and dry at first I think we would all lose this point if we don't see the rest of the answers.

[BigA]

I can see where you got tangled up with "eliminate," but ultimately the word "eliminate" does not mean "eliminate ALL." When you hear that GE is "eliminating jobs," it doesn't mean they fired EVERYONE and closed up shop for good. It means there are now fewer jobs at GE than before.

That was a helpful explanation. Thanks for taking the time. I can now see how "eliminate" is used in this sense. I still say if someone came to me and said "We have eliminated demeaning work at our factory" I would tend to think they mean there is no more demeaning work, not that the amount of work is reduced. Funny thing is I looked back at "liberate humanity" and thought the same thing -- that it means is to free completely, in which case the conclusion wouldn't be faulty.