PT16.S2.Q10: What does "eliminate" mean?

Ashley2018-1

In the last sentence of the stimulus, does "eliminate" mean completely removing ALL demeaning work, or only reducing the sum total of demeaning work? The last sentence says the robots will only "substitute one type of demeaning work for another" so is he arguing that the sum TOTAL of demeaning work will remain the same, even if we started using robots?

And isn't the author assuming that the engineer's job and "least expensive, least demanding" labor is "demeaning?" Why isn't that a flaw?

Glutton for the LSAT

Hi @Ashley2018:

Good questions. Typically, when the LSAT doesn't use explicit quantitative terms like "all" or "every" then you should assume that it is a "some" statement. That is, in the sentence "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" this should be understood as "robots will not eliminate [at least one kind of] demeaning work." When you apply this existential qualification, you can predict that the answer choice will show that there is at least one kind of demeaning work that robots get rid of.

Secondly, when we're tasked to find the flaw in the stimulus, we are trying to find a flaw in reasoning. In terms of content, we are always supposed to operate with the assumption that the stimulus is factual; in other words, anything in the stimulus is assumed to be indisputably correct. We're told that the "least expensive, least skilled human labor" possible is needed (a factual claim).

Even if the author does go so far as to assume that "least expensive" and "least skilled" is equivalent to "demeaning work"—which many blue-collar people might disagree with—the conclusion makes it clear that this is not the main argument. The main argument is a quantitative one: Robots will numerically not lessen the amount of demeaning work. In this way, we can safely rule out answer choice (B) as an option because it doesn't deal with this numerical issue.

I hope this helps!

Ashley2018-1

@"Glutton for the LSAT" said:
Hi @Ashley2018

Good questions. Typically, when the LSAT doesn't use explicit quantitative terms like "all" or "every" then you should assume that it is a "some" statement. That is, in the sentence "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" this should be understood as "robots will not eliminate [at least one kind of] demeaning work." When you apply this existential qualification, you can predict that the answer choice will show that there is at least one kind of demeaning work that robots get rid of.

Secondly, when we're tasked to find the flaw in the stimulus, we are trying to find a flaw in reasoning. In terms of content, we are always supposed to operate with the assumption that the stimulus is factual; in other words, anything in the stimulus is assumed to be indisputably correct. We're told that the "least expensive, least skilled human labor" possible is needed (a factual claim). Even if the author does go so far as to assume that "least expensive" and "least skilled" is equivalent to "demeaning work"—which many blue-collar people might disagree with—the conclusion makes it clear that this is not the main argument. The main argument is a quantitative one: Robots will numerically not lessen the amount of demeaning work. In this way, we can safely rule out answer choice (B) as an option because it doesn't deal with this numerical issue.

I hope this helps!

So are you saying even if the author is assuming that work that is least expensive and least skilled is demeaning, that is just one of several flaws with this argument? Like it could have been an answer choice but the test decided to go for the flaw that is harder to spot?

Ashley2018-1

@Ashley2018 said:

@"Glutton for the LSAT" said:
Hi @Ashley2018

Good questions. Typically, when the LSAT doesn't use explicit quantitative terms like "all" or "every" then you should assume that it is a "some" statement. That is, in the sentence "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" this should be understood as "robots will not eliminate [at least one kind of] demeaning work." When you apply this existential qualification, you can predict that the answer choice will show that there is at least one kind of demeaning work that robots get rid of.

Secondly, when we're tasked to find the flaw in the stimulus, we are trying to find a flaw in reasoning. In terms of content, we are always supposed to operate with the assumption that the stimulus is factual; in other words, anything in the stimulus is assumed to be indisputably correct. We're told that the "least expensive, least skilled human labor" possible is needed (a factual claim). Even if the author does go so far as to assume that "least expensive" and "least skilled" is equivalent to "demeaning work"—which many blue-collar people might disagree with—the conclusion makes it clear that this is not the main argument. The main argument is a quantitative one: Robots will numerically not lessen the amount of demeaning work. In this way, we can safely rule out answer choice (B) as an option because it doesn't deal with this numerical issue.

I hope this helps!

I think I understand what you are saying, but since an assumption is an unstated premise, and the author seems to explicitly link engineer's work and low energy work to the term "demeaning," does that mean this isn't an assumption at all? I thought it was an assumption because the author didn't go and state "an engineer's job is demeaning" and low energy work is also demeaning but when I go back and re-read it, I'm starting to think he did.

To put it simply, is the correct answer choice stating that robots WILL lessen the total amount of demeaning work?

Glutton for the LSAT

@Ashley2018 said:

@Ashley2018 said:

@"Glutton for the LSAT" said:
Hi @Ashley2018

Good questions. Typically, when the LSAT doesn't use explicit quantitative terms like "all" or "every" then you should assume that it is a "some" statement. That is, in the sentence "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" this should be understood as "robots will not eliminate [at least one kind of] demeaning work." When you apply this existential qualification, you can predict that the answer choice will show that there is at least one kind of demeaning work that robots get rid of.

Secondly, when we're tasked to find the flaw in the stimulus, we are trying to find a flaw in reasoning. In terms of content, we are always supposed to operate with the assumption that the stimulus is factual; in other words, anything in the stimulus is assumed to be indisputably correct. We're told that the "least expensive, least skilled human labor" possible is needed (a factual claim). Even if the author does go so far as to assume that "least expensive" and "least skilled" is equivalent to "demeaning work"—which many blue-collar people might disagree with—the conclusion makes it clear that this is not the main argument. The main argument is a quantitative one: Robots will numerically not lessen the amount of demeaning work. In this way, we can safely rule out answer choice (B) as an option because it doesn't deal with this numerical issue.

I hope this helps!

I think I understand what you are saying, but since an assumption is an unstated premise, and the author seems to explicitly link engineer's work and low energy work to the term "demeaning," does that mean this isn't an assumption at all? I thought it was an assumption because the author didn't go and state "an engineer's job is demeaning" and low energy work is also demeaning but when I go back and re-read it, I'm starting to think he did.

To put it simply, is the correct answer choice stating that robots WILL lessen the total amount of demeaning work?

Yes! Answer choice (E) is saying that even if robots will create a little bit of demeaning work, it will lessen the amount of demeaning work in total.

Right, so as I previously posted, even if the author does make an equivocation between "least skilled" and "demeaning" this is ultimately not the point of the argument. The conclusion is talking about a quantitative statement, i.e., the amount of work that robots will not lessen.

Ashley2018-1

@"Glutton for the LSAT" said:

@Ashley2018 said:

@Ashley2018 said:

@"Glutton for the LSAT" said:
Hi @Ashley2018

Good questions. Typically, when the LSAT doesn't use explicit quantitative terms like "all" or "every" then you should assume that it is a "some" statement. That is, in the sentence "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" this should be understood as "robots will not eliminate [at least one kind of] demeaning work." When you apply this existential qualification, you can predict that the answer choice will show that there is at least one kind of demeaning work that robots get rid of.

Secondly, when we're tasked to find the flaw in the stimulus, we are trying to find a flaw in reasoning. In terms of content, we are always supposed to operate with the assumption that the stimulus is factual; in other words, anything in the stimulus is assumed to be indisputably correct. We're told that the "least expensive, least skilled human labor" possible is needed (a factual claim). Even if the author does go so far as to assume that "least expensive" and "least skilled" is equivalent to "demeaning work"—which many blue-collar people might disagree with—the conclusion makes it clear that this is not the main argument. The main argument is a quantitative one: Robots will numerically not lessen the amount of demeaning work. In this way, we can safely rule out answer choice (B) as an option because it doesn't deal with this numerical issue.

I hope this helps!

I think I understand what you are saying, but since an assumption is an unstated premise, and the author seems to explicitly link engineer's work and low energy work to the term "demeaning," does that mean this isn't an assumption at all? I thought it was an assumption because the author didn't go and state "an engineer's job is demeaning" and low energy work is also demeaning but when I go back and re-read it, I'm starting to think he did.

To put it simply, is the correct answer choice stating that robots WILL lessen the total amount of demeaning work?

Yes! Answer choice (E) is saying that even if robots will create a little bit of demeaning work, it will lessen the amount of demeaning work in total.

Right, so as I previously posted, even if the author does make an equivocation between "least skilled" and "demeaning" this is ultimately not the point of the argument. The conclusion is talking about a quantitative statement, i.e., the amount of work that robots will not lessen.

the only thing I'm inclined to disagree with you on is your first statement. the stimulus said "liberate humanity from demeaning work" and so I assumed eliminate meant eliminate all. it's true the word "all" didn't appear in the stimulus, but sometimes the term "all" is implied. If the stimulus had said "red cars are slow," that would imply all even if the term "all" didn't appear.