Something I really struggle with is how to know when to make inferences. For example in answer choice C, the assumption was made that other small companies winning prestigious awards (and Baxe not) may insinuate that some of those small companies have designs superior to Baxe. This seems like a reasonable conclusion to make but that's the issue. I make assumptions like this all the time that I feel are reasonably justified and they trap me. How do I know when an inference is actually valid vs. trying to trap me?
I think this is an interesting passage because it's one of the few that doesn't contain an argument. It's a statement of a phenomenon and then a statement of a causal explanation of the phenomenon (in the conditional chain), but the conclusion is not explicitly stated.
My logic for answering this was that since baxe has a monopoly but hasn't won any awards, the other design companies do not threaten its nearly monopoly because they have shown they can preform better to some extent yet Baxe still obtains contracts.
Is the way I did this dangerous? I didn't map out the conditional logic, and a lot of times I don't. Now I worry that this may impact my success in the future.
This question forces you to make the assumption that because small design companies have won prestigious awards for their designs that they are superior to those of Baxe.
I was between C and E, and ended up choosing E based on what makes the most sense. However upon watching the video it makes sense that they used Several in the text versus Most in the answer.
I know this doesn't matter to the actual question/answers provided here, but just to understand the question better, how could several small design companies have prestigious awards for their corporate work if no corporate managers will hire small companies?
I understand E is the right answer, but it does seem like a bit of an assumption about the real world and our own biases to assume that just because small design companies won prestigious awards that makes them "superior." Especially since this could be a matter of opinion (what is or is not superior/inferior and on what basis we judge these things). There is nothing explicitly in the passage that says or even implies that those that win prestigious awards are "superior." So how exactly is this a reasonable assumption?
I got this right but for the wrong reason I guess - what really confused me here was the fact that the stimulus used awards as a way to indicate that small companies had superior designs - I interpreted this as not being an indicator of one's quality (someone might have connections that ensure that they will get award, etc.). I think that this is a good reminder for me not to let my own biases and outside knowledge interfere with my rationale and stick to the stimulus
It's easier to avoid letting your own thoughts or opinions interfere when selecting an answer by reading each choice and mentally asking, "BUT WHY?" Then, turn back to the stimulus for support.
However, several small companies won awards for their corporate work! I'm having a hard time understanding, how on earth they got to work on those contract, forget winning an award? Remember, only large companies get corporate contracts. Isn't it a flaw in the Stim?
Stim instead should have just stated that, several small companies won award for their work / designs etc. This phrase 'corporate work' is inconsistent with rest of the stim.
I like to think that C requires two assumptions whereas E requires only one assumption.
C: requires you to assume "several small companies" is enough "for the most part," and equivocate "awards" to being "superior." It could be the case that awards are only given to smaller firms for "fairness" or that they are equal in quality to large firms.
E: You only have to assume the last part of C again. This is one less assumption.
I swear I listen to him talk about the problem, and he runs through the steps and makes it so simple. In my head I say I got this then when an actual question comes, Im like what...?
I am not understanding why the correct answer choice is E. Obviously because of conditional logic we know that the superior design ideas from small corporations are not going to threaten Baxe's monopoly, but how do we know that there aren't other large corporations that have superior design ideas and therefore could threaten the monopoly that Baxe has? Especially because the stimulus states that Baxe is only ONE of the largest companies in the corporate market. I would say this answer choice should just sit in the middle with the rest. Please help!
E. The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market.
I don't see how E (or any of the answer choices) is the right answer.
We know from the text that the small design companies don't threaten Baxe's near monopoly because corporate managers will only contract with large companies, but we don't know from the text that other large companies don't produce superior designs that could currently threaten Baxe's near monopoly.
The text directly indicates that there are other large interior design companies when it says "Baxe Interiors, one of the largest interior design companies in existence." It does not say anything about the quality of the other large companies' designs.
We even eliminated answer choice A because we don't know anything about their designs. A said, "There are very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are inferior to Baxe’s." When eliminating A J.Y. wrote, "The stimulus makes no mention of the quality of other large companies’ designs in comparison to Baxe’s designs. They could be equivalent, they could be inferior, they could be superior. We don’t know."
The very assumption we are saying is too far to make in A we are turning around and saying we must make for E. In order for E to be supported by the stimulus, we have to assume that the other large corporations don't have superior designs that could currently threaten Baxe's near monopoly in the corporate market.
If the stimulus had said Baxe was the only large interior design company in the market I would think E is a perfect answer, but as it stands, none of the answers seem supported, and this question is wild to me.
3
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
72 comments
Something I really struggle with is how to know when to make inferences. For example in answer choice C, the assumption was made that other small companies winning prestigious awards (and Baxe not) may insinuate that some of those small companies have designs superior to Baxe. This seems like a reasonable conclusion to make but that's the issue. I make assumptions like this all the time that I feel are reasonably justified and they trap me. How do I know when an inference is actually valid vs. trying to trap me?
I honestly got this one right by POE. It was hard to understand at first.
I think this is an interesting passage because it's one of the few that doesn't contain an argument. It's a statement of a phenomenon and then a statement of a causal explanation of the phenomenon (in the conditional chain), but the conclusion is not explicitly stated.
If C had said "SOME designs produced by small companies..." instead of "most", could that have been correct?
My logic for answering this was that since baxe has a monopoly but hasn't won any awards, the other design companies do not threaten its nearly monopoly because they have shown they can preform better to some extent yet Baxe still obtains contracts.
Is the way I did this dangerous? I didn't map out the conditional logic, and a lot of times I don't. Now I worry that this may impact my success in the future.
This question forces you to make the assumption that because small design companies have won prestigious awards for their designs that they are superior to those of Baxe.
Isnt "only" a Group 2 Necessary condition indicator? Why is the contract being put in the sufficient condition?
Isnt only a Group 2 Necessary condition indicator? Why is the contract being put in the sufficient condition?
is there an easier explanation for D?
I was between C and E, and ended up choosing E based on what makes the most sense. However upon watching the video it makes sense that they used Several in the text versus Most in the answer.
I know this doesn't matter to the actual question/answers provided here, but just to understand the question better, how could several small design companies have prestigious awards for their corporate work if no corporate managers will hire small companies?
Though I got this one right, I was very close to choosing
C. For the most part, designs that are produced by small companies are superior to the designs produced by Baxe.
Maybe I need to review most / some, but "several" seems to imply at least 51% or more, which would be most
I understand the explanation but how the world do we do achieve this understanding during the LSAT under time constraints?
I understand E is the right answer, but it does seem like a bit of an assumption about the real world and our own biases to assume that just because small design companies won prestigious awards that makes them "superior." Especially since this could be a matter of opinion (what is or is not superior/inferior and on what basis we judge these things). There is nothing explicitly in the passage that says or even implies that those that win prestigious awards are "superior." So how exactly is this a reasonable assumption?
I got this right but for the wrong reason I guess - what really confused me here was the fact that the stimulus used awards as a way to indicate that small companies had superior designs - I interpreted this as not being an indicator of one's quality (someone might have connections that ensure that they will get award, etc.). I think that this is a good reminder for me not to let my own biases and outside knowledge interfere with my rationale and stick to the stimulus
It's easier to avoid letting your own thoughts or opinions interfere when selecting an answer by reading each choice and mentally asking, "BUT WHY?" Then, turn back to the stimulus for support.
Corporate contracts > Large companies
-Large companies > -Corporate contracts
However, several small companies won awards for their corporate work! I'm having a hard time understanding, how on earth they got to work on those contract, forget winning an award? Remember, only large companies get corporate contracts. Isn't it a flaw in the Stim?
Stim instead should have just stated that, several small companies won award for their work / designs etc. This phrase 'corporate work' is inconsistent with rest of the stim.
This was such a weirdly worded question
I like to think that C requires two assumptions whereas E requires only one assumption.
C: requires you to assume "several small companies" is enough "for the most part," and equivocate "awards" to being "superior." It could be the case that awards are only given to smaller firms for "fairness" or that they are equal in quality to large firms.
E: You only have to assume the last part of C again. This is one less assumption.
I swear I listen to him talk about the problem, and he runs through the steps and makes it so simple. In my head I say I got this then when an actual question comes, Im like what...?
I am not understanding why the correct answer choice is E. Obviously because of conditional logic we know that the superior design ideas from small corporations are not going to threaten Baxe's monopoly, but how do we know that there aren't other large corporations that have superior design ideas and therefore could threaten the monopoly that Baxe has? Especially because the stimulus states that Baxe is only ONE of the largest companies in the corporate market. I would say this answer choice should just sit in the middle with the rest. Please help!
Is it safe to say that our POE should be to eliminate new information?
How can you assume that just because they won an award, their designs are superior? Doesn't that taint two answer choices?
I do wish in these lessons that we were shown all answer choices to try and get it correct before going into the explanation of the answers.
E. The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market.
I don't see how E (or any of the answer choices) is the right answer.
We know from the text that the small design companies don't threaten Baxe's near monopoly because corporate managers will only contract with large companies, but we don't know from the text that other large companies don't produce superior designs that could currently threaten Baxe's near monopoly.
The text directly indicates that there are other large interior design companies when it says "Baxe Interiors, one of the largest interior design companies in existence." It does not say anything about the quality of the other large companies' designs.
We even eliminated answer choice A because we don't know anything about their designs. A said, "There are very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are inferior to Baxe’s." When eliminating A J.Y. wrote, "The stimulus makes no mention of the quality of other large companies’ designs in comparison to Baxe’s designs. They could be equivalent, they could be inferior, they could be superior. We don’t know."
The very assumption we are saying is too far to make in A we are turning around and saying we must make for E. In order for E to be supported by the stimulus, we have to assume that the other large corporations don't have superior designs that could currently threaten Baxe's near monopoly in the corporate market.
If the stimulus had said Baxe was the only large interior design company in the market I would think E is a perfect answer, but as it stands, none of the answers seem supported, and this question is wild to me.