PT82.S4.Q13 - Computer voice recognition technology

g00g00shg00g00sh Alum Member
edited November 2017 in September 2017 LSAT 119 karma

Hey all, I don't know if this is allowed, so moderators please step in if it isn't--I just wanted to see if anyone could provide an explanation (especially a simple diagram) of the NA question on PT 82 from September regarding homophones and computer voice-recognition technology. I've been looking over my test and having trouble getting to the right answer. Thanks!


  • EvetteCeeEvetteCee Alum Member
    224 karma

    I messaged you!

  • g00g00shg00g00sh Alum Member
    119 karma

    Did anyone else think this is a bit of an uncommon NA question? It requires you to make an extra assumption before arriving at the correct answer choice. Perhaps this first assumption is under the umbrella of "common sense assumptions" that the LSAT considers negligible.

    But still, if anyone could point me to similar questions that require a tiny quantum leap in order to understand the argument and arrive at the right answer, I would love to see them so I could pay closer attention to these types of arguments!

  • g00g00shg00g00sh Alum Member
    119 karma

    So, I answered my own question, and I will put it here in case it benefits anyone else.

    PT 55 S3 Q24 is a similar argument structure that requires you to make a "common sense" inference before reaching the necessary assumption. That argument is built like this:

    P: Objective Evaluation of poetry is possible ----> Readers do NOT assign meaning

    C: Aesthetic evaluation -------> At least two readers must agree on meaning

    So, in order to reach the correct answer (Obj eval possible -----> Aesthetic evaluation), you need to first need to have an AHA moment and realize that the necssary conditions of both statements mean the same thing: in plain terms, readers don't each assign meaning because they all have to agree on the poem's meaning. (It has a meaning that is not reader-dependent.) Once you make this connection, it's very easy to see that we just need to make the sufficient condition of the statement in the premise point to the sufficient condition in the conclusion in order to bridge the gap in the argument! (Obj eval possible -----> Aesthetic evaluation)

    My TAKEAWAY from this is to not be too mechanistic in my approach to the argument and to actually think about what it's saying for a second. This won't usually be necessary (pun intended) on easier NA questions, but these tricky ones require (pun also intended) you to approach the argument with a common-sense understanding of what its terms mean, and to be able to manipulate these terms enough to see that they are rewordings of a similar idea. Hope someone finds this helpful!

  • jsfollowerjsfollower Legacy Member
    66 karma

    @"Bay Area" @Max_henry91 Hey man, I also had similar question on this one, could you please elaborate what you meant by this question requires you to make an extra assumption?

    Also, this is how I approach this question:
    ~DBH (Cannot distinguish between homophones)
    IRU (Improved to recognize and utilize blah blah)
    AT (Accurately translate blah blah)

    Premise: ~DBH

    Conclusion: AT -> IRU

    I equated DBH and IRU because I mean if it cannot distinguish between homophones such as "their" and "there," doesn't that also mean it will not accurately translate a computer user's spoken words into written text?

    So the two ideas are essentially saying the same thing, so new diagram is as follows:

    Premise: ~DBH

    Conclusion: DBH -> IRU (or ~IRU -> ~DBH)

    Therefore, the necessary assumption needed is that without IRU, ~DBH, which is what answer choice (A) states.

    Is this a okay reasoning? I feel like this question was atypical since the assumption required was just showing that the necessary condition of the conditional conclusion was indeed necessary whereas other N/A question answers normally bridge the gap between premise and conclusion.

  • J.Y. PingJ.Y. Ping Administrator Instructor
    edited November 2017 13461 karma
Sign In or Register to comment.