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
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.....
Having read the explanation for why B is wrong, isn't it still an assumption that the the heat wouldn't just be fed, but fed in a way that makes it possible for the generators to convert it into electricity? Like I get that the author's conclusion is conditioned on it being fed into the generators, but that condition doesn't extend all the way to the successful conversion of the heat into electricity. I see that the premise states that these generators convert heat into electricity, but it doesn't state that they can do so regardless of how the heat is supplied. In other words, I get why B would be wrong if it didn't include the "in such a way..." part...but it does...
The fact that I originally chose C but then thought that it was irrelevant to how the money would actually be saved and so I eliminated the answer.... im like getting progressively worse its so disheartening
I thought we're not allowed to go backwards for the correct answer? For C, it starts with the conclusion, but I thought we aren't suppose to go backwards?
I ruled out C because I felt it could still be the case that the company saves money even if C was not true, if you think of saving money on a long horizon. It could be true that you spend a lot of money installing and purchasing generators such that the cost outweighs the savings on electric bills one year, but that the electric savings over, say, a 10 year period outweigh the initial costs. It was my mistake to insert a timescale into the question where there wasn't one, and to not see how B was already sufficient (and thereby not necessary).
Dude this question is infuriating. Feels like this was the first one I was actually confident on for NA questions, especially since is felt like negating AC B made the argument fall apart.
AC C makes sense, but what does it have to do with electrical bills? How are we just supposed to know they want the answer to be about "overall cost," including the purchase of the generators?
My brain does not work the way the entire LSAT is explained. I got the correct answer though. However, in explaining answer choice B, the explanation says that
t's possible that purchasing, installing, running, and maintaining thermophotovoltaic generators costs less than the amount saved on electric bills. If that's true then the cost-benefit analysis is in favor of these generators. But if that's false, then even though you reduce your electric bills, you’d end up spending more money.
But then in the correct answer, C, we're basically saying that the generators WOULD in fact cover the cost of purchase and installation.
Don't these explanations go against each other? Im just insanely confused by the explanations.
This may be wrong but it feels like the pointing to "installation and cost" of the machine kind of acts like an independent solution or strengthener to the argument. I would assume that because it is cost benefit, that is just the nature of the AC but I feel like it kind of goes against the rule that we should ignore AC's that try to bring in an alternative explanation that disrespects the support structure.
Thank god the correct answer stood out, or else I would have been tricked by B. Could anyone explain how the hypothetical precludes B? I don't understand how.
Every time I get an answer wrong, I go back and read the stimulus and realize I interpreted 1 word or 1 sentence in my head into meaning something else and it kills me. because if I just read it right the first time, I would've clearly gotten the right answer.
12
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!
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.
157 comments
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
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.....
Having read the explanation for why B is wrong, isn't it still an assumption that the the heat wouldn't just be fed, but fed in a way that makes it possible for the generators to convert it into electricity? Like I get that the author's conclusion is conditioned on it being fed into the generators, but that condition doesn't extend all the way to the successful conversion of the heat into electricity. I see that the premise states that these generators convert heat into electricity, but it doesn't state that they can do so regardless of how the heat is supplied. In other words, I get why B would be wrong if it didn't include the "in such a way..." part...but it does...
FIRST ONE RIGHT IN THIS UNIT??!!! Not sure why i can get high difficultly right but easier questions wrong ...
I missed that "if". oops
The fact that I originally chose C but then thought that it was irrelevant to how the money would actually be saved and so I eliminated the answer.... im like getting progressively worse its so disheartening
I thought we're not allowed to go backwards for the correct answer? For C, it starts with the conclusion, but I thought we aren't suppose to go backwards?
I ruled out C because I felt it could still be the case that the company saves money even if C was not true, if you think of saving money on a long horizon. It could be true that you spend a lot of money installing and purchasing generators such that the cost outweighs the savings on electric bills one year, but that the electric savings over, say, a 10 year period outweigh the initial costs. It was my mistake to insert a timescale into the question where there wasn't one, and to not see how B was already sufficient (and thereby not necessary).
Dude this question is infuriating. Feels like this was the first one I was actually confident on for NA questions, especially since is felt like negating AC B made the argument fall apart.
AC C makes sense, but what does it have to do with electrical bills? How are we just supposed to know they want the answer to be about "overall cost," including the purchase of the generators?
feed heat is not the same as producing heat, so why is B wrong. Cost of equipment has nothing to do with bills so why is C right?
My brain does not work the way the entire LSAT is explained. I got the correct answer though. However, in explaining answer choice B, the explanation says that
But then in the correct answer, C, we're basically saying that the generators WOULD in fact cover the cost of purchase and installation.
Don't these explanations go against each other? Im just insanely confused by the explanations.
wo
this one killed me
I got a bone to pick with these lsat writers
This may be wrong but it feels like the pointing to "installation and cost" of the machine kind of acts like an independent solution or strengthener to the argument. I would assume that because it is cost benefit, that is just the nature of the AC but I feel like it kind of goes against the rule that we should ignore AC's that try to bring in an alternative explanation that disrespects the support structure.
The assumption in this one is so sneaky and I read right past it. it is literally a two word assumption at the end of the conclusion sentence.
If AC B is negated, then it would read "using current technology, it would NOT be possible..." Doesn't this negation ruin the argument?
Wow
Thank god the correct answer stood out, or else I would have been tricked by B. Could anyone explain how the hypothetical precludes B? I don't understand how.
Every time I get an answer wrong, I go back and read the stimulus and realize I interpreted 1 word or 1 sentence in my head into meaning something else and it kills me. because if I just read it right the first time, I would've clearly gotten the right answer.