Perhaps the factory must invest a huge amount of capex into maintaining its existing supply of power, for example, it must replace a broken hydroelectric turbine whose cost dwarfs the cost of a new thermovoltaic generator. Therefore the new generator need not pay for itself to save the plant money and the assumption is not necessary :(
I really love how this question uses several heuristics as distractors (in addition to the use of "some" in distractors, you also have "sufficient" in the correct answer to an NA question), but my favorite is how it uses "thereby". There are, in fact, many ways that developing and deploying a novel way to redirect waste energy from heat back to useful energy for manufacturing steel could be profitable overall. If the argument was tweaked so that the economic benefit did not have to specifically result from a reduction in the plant's electrical bills, answer C is no longer necessary, but "thereby" limits the possible scope of the economic benefit. For the argument to be correct, the savings MUST come directly from the reduction in electric bills. That is why C is necessary (and also why C relies on the mechanism of sufficiency to be necessary - the argument is that reducing the bill is sufficient to save money).
I am getting every answer wrong. The negation technique doesn't seem to be working out for me. It seems like I can always come up with a reason why, an AC, would be necessary using negation.
I don't understand how you can see what is necessary in the moment of seeing the question without taking extraordinary amounts of time
@MRod In short, the argument not requiring an answer just doesn't make sense for me. SA questions and weakening questions I seem to be ok with but not sure with NA questions
@VanillaCat We are concluding that they would save money, so to reach this conclusion, we need to confirm that there's nothing PREVENTING us from it. If there are costs working against us saving money, the conclusion (and argument) falls apart. The negation of B is saying, "well, what if the generators can't ALWAYS convert heat into energy?" This doesn't matter as much because we can still reach the conclusion that if it's possible in any way, they will save money. If the heat --> electricity is achievable, they'll save money. In turn, C is saying okay, it's possible, but there's a whole new cost that would prevent us from saving money. At least that is what I thought when I chose C
The way that this is being taught is so confusing. I don't understand why I am getting things wrong. I can easily spot SA answer choices but not NA. There are way too many extra steps that are being taught, destroying my ability to stay on the time frame that is required to finish all the questions. I feel like I'm doing too much and have too many different approaches that just don't work. Can you please make it more focused on what needs to be seen in these questions rather than explain possible hypotheticals.
A was my trap answer! I'm surprised more people didn't fall for it, but C was my runner up in Blind Review. I used to be SO BAD at NA that I would get both attempts incorrect. I slowed down and have been doing about 2-5 questions a day and really taking the time to understand how/why I was wrong. So if you feel hopeless, hang in there! I'm not saying I'm perfect right now but you can only go up from rock bottom :)
The explanation for AC B would be applicable to all If-then statements including if-could. Any IF statement is hypothetical in principle. This is a stretch as an explanation.
@CMas We have to start with the basics. It would help to lay out your thought process.
Can you explain how you are thinking about this question?
What's the conclusion? Why does the author believe the conclusion must be true? Why is that reasoning flawed (in other words, why might the conclusion be false even if we accept the premises as true)?
This is where you have to start to better understand this question.
I think the key word isn't just "if", it's also "could feed".
If that sentence were to read "So if steel-manufacturing plants fed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators...", then B would be a necessary assumption. In order for the plants to engage in this process in the first place, it would be necessary for the technology to actually exist for this process to happen.
I think the reason I got this wrong and chose B (even though I knew C "also" made sense as an answer) was because I didn't interpret "if...could feed" as meaning "if it was possible", creating a "hypothetical world" where it is possible. I misread it instead as meaning something like "if they bothered to".
The cost-benefit analysis tip in the review SAVED ME on this. If the author's reasoning is cost-benefit analysis, then the author must assume the cost/benefits don't outweigh those of the argument. That doesn't sound very clear without an example, so use this question as the example. The author says that the manufacturing plants would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money, if they invest in the generators that would convert their "free" heat into energy. That means the author is saying the potential to save money on electric bills outweighs the cost of the generators. Answer choice C accomplishes that same idea.
i havent gotten a single on correct in this unit. i am dead. still at 0% understanding of this.
I am negating every AC and pretty much every AC destroys the argument to some extent, can someone help. I have watched multiple YT videos too, none of them are making any sense
@legallyhaya If the negation only destroys the argument to "some extent" then it's likely not the correct AC. That still allows the argument to run through. The negation of the correct AC will make it impossible for the argument to follow.
This is a hard Q type for me too but you got this!
I was between B and C, thinking about B, the passage did say "IF," and so did not really assume certainty about the generators doing their 'thing' (converting heat into electricity) , but I do not feel too bad about because I was also considering C.
The explanation says (D) can be fixed by removing the word "primary". That is, it's necessary that at least some steel manufacturing plants rely on electricity as a source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process. Is this really the case?
Checking with the negation technique, we get "no steel manufacturing plants rely on electricity as a source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process".
If electricity can't be used for the steel-manufacturing process, would there still be any electric bills for the steel-manufacturing plant? If not, Can the heat-converted electricity be of any other use? If so, would that use necessarily not save any money?
The premise doesn't state that the electric bills of steel-manufacturing plants result from the steel-manufacturing process. It may result from other different process that's part of the plant, and with the electric bills that come with it being reduced, money may be saved.
My biggest issue of confusion here in the correct answer C is that is clearly says that "saving on bills is sufficient", but the conclusion clearly has the "reduce bills/saving aspect" in the necessary condition. Over and over again we are told not to confuse sufficient for necessary but that looks like that is happening here.....
@WesleyNix The difference here is that the conclusion is an embedded conditional (Feed the heat -> reduce bills -> Save money). JY usually recommends 'kicking up into the domain' in situations like this where basically the "feed the heat -> reduce bills" portion of the conditional statement would become part of the premises, and the lone conclusion would be that "money will be saved". Also with C, the statement is not conditional. I know the term "sufficient" is used so that could lead you to believe its referring to a sufficient condition, but its actually used as its dictionary term to explain that the amount saved would be good enough (same meaning as "sufficient") to cover the purchasing/installing cost.
Its good that you are being cautious of the sufficiency/necessity confusion because it comes up a lot. But in this case with the argument and answer choice C, this flaw does not occur. I hope this helps!
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.
179 comments
I was between A and C
Perhaps the factory must invest a huge amount of capex into maintaining its existing supply of power, for example, it must replace a broken hydroelectric turbine whose cost dwarfs the cost of a new thermovoltaic generator. Therefore the new generator need not pay for itself to save the plant money and the assumption is not necessary :(
The cost benefit NA question - are different lol - failed all 3 so far.
This question and the correct answer makes absolutely no sense to me. It goes against everything I've learned this far.
I really love how this question uses several heuristics as distractors (in addition to the use of "some" in distractors, you also have "sufficient" in the correct answer to an NA question), but my favorite is how it uses "thereby". There are, in fact, many ways that developing and deploying a novel way to redirect waste energy from heat back to useful energy for manufacturing steel could be profitable overall. If the argument was tweaked so that the economic benefit did not have to specifically result from a reduction in the plant's electrical bills, answer C is no longer necessary, but "thereby" limits the possible scope of the economic benefit. For the argument to be correct, the savings MUST come directly from the reduction in electric bills. That is why C is necessary (and also why C relies on the mechanism of sufficiency to be necessary - the argument is that reducing the bill is sufficient to save money).
I am getting every answer wrong. The negation technique doesn't seem to be working out for me. It seems like I can always come up with a reason why, an AC, would be necessary using negation.
I don't understand how you can see what is necessary in the moment of seeing the question without taking extraordinary amounts of time
@MRod In short, the argument not requiring an answer just doesn't make sense for me. SA questions and weakening questions I seem to be ok with but not sure with NA questions
i am the wizard of this question
@VanillaCat We are concluding that they would save money, so to reach this conclusion, we need to confirm that there's nothing PREVENTING us from it. If there are costs working against us saving money, the conclusion (and argument) falls apart. The negation of B is saying, "well, what if the generators can't ALWAYS convert heat into energy?" This doesn't matter as much because we can still reach the conclusion that if it's possible in any way, they will save money. If the heat --> electricity is achievable, they'll save money. In turn, C is saying okay, it's possible, but there's a whole new cost that would prevent us from saving money. At least that is what I thought when I chose C
The way that this is being taught is so confusing. I don't understand why I am getting things wrong. I can easily spot SA answer choices but not NA. There are way too many extra steps that are being taught, destroying my ability to stay on the time frame that is required to finish all the questions. I feel like I'm doing too much and have too many different approaches that just don't work. Can you please make it more focused on what needs to be seen in these questions rather than explain possible hypotheticals.
A was my trap answer! I'm surprised more people didn't fall for it, but C was my runner up in Blind Review. I used to be SO BAD at NA that I would get both attempts incorrect. I slowed down and have been doing about 2-5 questions a day and really taking the time to understand how/why I was wrong. So if you feel hopeless, hang in there! I'm not saying I'm perfect right now but you can only go up from rock bottom :)
The explanation for AC B would be applicable to all If-then statements including if-could. Any IF statement is hypothetical in principle. This is a stretch as an explanation.
@SMRegalado Yes, every "If A, then B" is hypothetical. This statement does not assert that "A" is true.
I have been struggling with this question type... But for the most part I have been getting the Blind review correct.
got this wrong but happy i chose the most attractive wrong answer lol
Please, can someone give me a method that does not involve using negation or "must be true" analysis.
No matter what I do, I cannot prove why something is necessary or why negating something undermines the argument.
I've gotten every single question wrong and I don't understand why an answer is right or wrong.
It honnestly feels more like this is just a "guess and go" question, because there is really no method or strategy for solving this.
#help
@CMas We have to start with the basics. It would help to lay out your thought process.
Can you explain how you are thinking about this question?
What's the conclusion? Why does the author believe the conclusion must be true? Why is that reasoning flawed (in other words, why might the conclusion be false even if we accept the premises as true)?
This is where you have to start to better understand this question.
I think the key word isn't just "if", it's also "could feed".
If that sentence were to read "So if steel-manufacturing plants fed the heat they produce into thermophotovoltaic generators...", then B would be a necessary assumption. In order for the plants to engage in this process in the first place, it would be necessary for the technology to actually exist for this process to happen.
I think the reason I got this wrong and chose B (even though I knew C "also" made sense as an answer) was because I didn't interpret "if...could feed" as meaning "if it was possible", creating a "hypothetical world" where it is possible. I misread it instead as meaning something like "if they bothered to".
Wow, I'm starting to get this finally
damn I really thought is was B
Lol I feel strawmanned. Who else didn't just pick B because of seeing "at least some" ?
bruh
how am i suppose to know the assumption would be the cost of purchasing when the passage didn't even talk about that man come on.
i wanna cry
The cost-benefit analysis tip in the review SAVED ME on this. If the author's reasoning is cost-benefit analysis, then the author must assume the cost/benefits don't outweigh those of the argument. That doesn't sound very clear without an example, so use this question as the example. The author says that the manufacturing plants would greatly reduce their electric bills, thereby saving money, if they invest in the generators that would convert their "free" heat into energy. That means the author is saying the potential to save money on electric bills outweighs the cost of the generators. Answer choice C accomplishes that same idea.
i havent gotten a single on correct in this unit. i am dead. still at 0% understanding of this.
I am negating every AC and pretty much every AC destroys the argument to some extent, can someone help. I have watched multiple YT videos too, none of them are making any sense
@legallyhaya If the negation only destroys the argument to "some extent" then it's likely not the correct AC. That still allows the argument to run through. The negation of the correct AC will make it impossible for the argument to follow.
This is a hard Q type for me too but you got this!
I was between B and C, thinking about B, the passage did say "IF," and so did not really assume certainty about the generators doing their 'thing' (converting heat into electricity) , but I do not feel too bad about because I was also considering C.
The explanation says (D) can be fixed by removing the word "primary". That is, it's necessary that at least some steel manufacturing plants rely on electricity as a source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process. Is this really the case?
Checking with the negation technique, we get "no steel manufacturing plants rely on electricity as a source of energy in the steel-manufacturing process".
If electricity can't be used for the steel-manufacturing process, would there still be any electric bills for the steel-manufacturing plant? If not, Can the heat-converted electricity be of any other use? If so, would that use necessarily not save any money?
The premise doesn't state that the electric bills of steel-manufacturing plants result from the steel-manufacturing process. It may result from other different process that's part of the plant, and with the electric bills that come with it being reduced, money may be saved.
My biggest issue of confusion here in the correct answer C is that is clearly says that "saving on bills is sufficient", but the conclusion clearly has the "reduce bills/saving aspect" in the necessary condition. Over and over again we are told not to confuse sufficient for necessary but that looks like that is happening here.....
@WesleyNix The difference here is that the conclusion is an embedded conditional (Feed the heat -> reduce bills -> Save money). JY usually recommends 'kicking up into the domain' in situations like this where basically the "feed the heat -> reduce bills" portion of the conditional statement would become part of the premises, and the lone conclusion would be that "money will be saved". Also with C, the statement is not conditional. I know the term "sufficient" is used so that could lead you to believe its referring to a sufficient condition, but its actually used as its dictionary term to explain that the amount saved would be good enough (same meaning as "sufficient") to cover the purchasing/installing cost.
Its good that you are being cautious of the sufficiency/necessity confusion because it comes up a lot. But in this case with the argument and answer choice C, this flaw does not occur. I hope this helps!
@OverheadHopefulStructure Thank you