LSAT 16 - Section 2 - Question 10

Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: The reasoning in the argument is most valid to the criticism that…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.

The argument begins by telling us about an illusion. Already, our author doesn’t like the sound of something! The speaker states it is incorrect robot inventions will liberate humans from hazardous and demeaning work. We should remind ourselves how these modifiers limit the subset of “work” we are dealing with. The author follows by telling us the reasoning behind this claim is that engineers would be using cheap labor, thus (and here is where we get to our conclusion!) that robots will be a substitute rather than a solution to the problem of working these meaningful positions. In short, our author points out the supposed solution to having these undesirable jobs will just put people into a different job that is also undesirable.

For an argument to be valid, the truth of the premises must guarantee the truth of the conclusion. The speaker takes a very specific position by telling us that we are substituting one thing for another. If our conclusion says these things are a direct swap – makes literally no difference – that pursuing the two types of work will still produce the same amount of demeaning labor tasks.

Answer Choice (A) This is descriptively accurate, but not the problem with the reasoning in our stimulus. Answer choice (A) points out a specific field of jobs that would be affected by robot technology. While our argument fails to address this consideration, it is still not the overall problem with the argument’s structure. The trend of jobs being eliminated with or without robots does not point to the terminology assumptions being made in our stimulus.

Answer Choice (B) This is a Circular Reasoning answer choice. By saying our argument “assumes what it sets out to prove,” the answer choice is suggesting the argument confirms the conclusion because the conclusion exists. In the context of our argument the author would have to say “this work substitutes a new demeaning type of work because it substitutes a new demeaning type of work.” This is a common answer choice in flaw questions that we can quickly identify.

Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but not the problem with the reasoning in our stimulus. It is true that our speaker does not explain if the engineers consider their own work to be demeaning – but who cares? What the engineers of this project think does not point out the definition problem we see in the stimulus.

Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. We definitely do not see an appeal to fear in the argument. Maybe if the speaker told us humans are afraid to perform demeaning work, but we don’t see any clear connection to our stimulus in this answer choice.

Correct Answer Choice (E) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively accurate answer choice correctly points out what our argument fails to consider; that jobs before and after robot technology do not see the same levels of hazardous positions being worked. If our robot technology jobs are a tad bit on the hazardous and demeaning side, that does not change the fact they could still be way better than the jobs humans were dealing with before.