Top Law Schools

Hi guys, I'm prepping for Sept LSAT. I've been trying to do as many PT as possible before the test.

I did PT 59 today, and I'm really stuck on this infer LR problem. I searched on this forum, and went through previous explanations (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=185582) but alas, I still don't get it.

21. Historian: The standard "QWERTY" configuration of the keys on typewriters and computer keyboards was originally designed to be awkward and limit typing speed. This was because early typewriters would jam frequently if adjacent keys were stuck in quick succession. Experiments have shown that keyboard configurations more efficient than QWERTY can double typing speed while tremendously reducing typing effort. However, the expense and inconvenience of switching to a new keyboard configuration prevent any configuration other than QWERTY from attaining widespread use.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the historian's statements?

(A) Most people who have tried typing with non-QWERTY keyboard have typed significantly more quickly using those keyboards than they usually have done using QWERTY keyboards.

(E) If the keyboard had been designed for computers, then it would not have been designed to limit typing speed.

Other choices were easy to eliminate, but why is (E) correct?

I read both TLS forum and MLSAT's explanation (this one by Mike Kim) and I think I get why (A) is wrong. The first sentence in the stem clearly says "QWERTY is a configuration of the keys on typewriters and computer keyboards" so wouldn't some keyboards designed for computers be designed to limit typing speed?

Thanks guys.

Post removed.

Thanks mornincounselor,

I get why (A) is wrong.

I also know that the stem does state that QWERTY was designed because early typewriters would jam frequently, thus leaving out the computer.
So I see why (E) would be a subtly correct answer, but are we fine at (1) supposing that computer keyboards wouldn't really have the jamming issue that typewriter would have, and (2) coming into a conclusion that since only typewriter was mentioned, computer keyboards is outside the scope although it mentions explicitly in the first sentence that the configuration is for both typewriters and computer keyboards?
I was taught not to bring "outside information" when doing LR question even for things that are kinda common sense.

my apologies if my post seems to ramble. It's late at night and this question is bugging me for some reason...

Post removed.

Thanks!

Hi greenapples,

Sounds like the counselor got you pretty well squared away, but I'd point out that E is the correct answer because of the specific nature of a typewriter, which differs significantly from that of a computer keyboard. I've repeatedly found that older test takers/people more familiar with the mechanics of a typewriter find this question much easier because it is intuitive for them how the literal stamping of a typewritten page could get problematic in a way that computer keyboards never could.

For this question, we can determine that keyboards would not be designed with this inconvenience if it weren't for their need to prevent technical malfunctions. If we were designing a computer keyboard from scratch, however, it is strongly supported that we would not have limited typing speed since the technical malfunctions are a nonissue.

A parallel ex: During the WWI era the guns mounted on monoplanes typically included an "interruptor," which disrupted the pilot's firing pattern. This was because early aircraft artillery, which was forward-facing, would often strike the plane's propeller if the bullets were fired in quick succession. It has been shown that pilots not using interruptors strike their targets more efficiently than do pilots using interruptors.

On this basis, we could determine that (E) if the guns were designed for modern airplanes, which don't use propellers, then they would not been been designed to have interruptors.

Post removed.

mornincounselor wrote:Did anyone notice they essentially recycled this question into a illustrate the principle question in PT 63-3-3?

Yeah I remember smiling when first reading this question.

Thanks everyone for helpful posts!

I read the question and explanations again after a long sleep and it all clicks. ahh...
Hope everyone is doing well with their prep.

Bumping this thread so I don't have to make a new one. Doesn't answer choice E rely on a logical flaw, wherein we have to assume that computer keyboards made earlier wouldn't jam?

The logic goes like this:

Because early typewriters jammed, we fucked its keyboard up
If the keyboard weren't fucked up, people's lives would be swell

Answer choice E:

If we didn't develop keyboards for typewriters, but instead computers, then we wouldn't need to intentionally fuck up a keyboard and thus that wouldn't have happened.

This is all assuming that if we invented keyboards for computers way way back in the day, these computer keyboards wouldn't also have jamming problems. Can we assume this? Can we assume a keyboard developed in 1970 for clunky computers wouldn't jam when adjacent keys are struck in succession?

Relevant analogy:

Because I have the flu, I am taking medicine.
Taking medicine is expensive and it's better to not take medicine.

Answer choice:

If PeanutsNJam doesn't have the flu, he wouldn't take medicine.

It would be wrong on so many levels to pick that answer choice.

I get that none of the other answer choices are right, but that doesn't justify making this one right. I eliminated this immediately due to this flaw.