LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 21

Which one of the following can most reasonably be concluded on the basis of the information above?

This is a Most Strongly Supported question, because we’re looking for what can “most reasonably be concluded” on the basis of the stimulus.

All social systems are based upon a division of economic roles. The values of a social system are embodied in the prestige accorded to persons who fill various economic roles.

This sounds like the beginning of a sociology textbook. Social systems are divided into economic roles – food producer, teacher, scientist, delivery driver, LSAT instructor, etc. The values of a social system are reflected in the prestige that people in different roles have. For example, in our modern social system, a doctor has more prestige than a grocery store clerk. A lawyer has more prestige than an LSAT instructor, sadly. This says something about the values of our social system.

It is therefore unsurprising that, for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology that makes certain economic roles obsolete will tend to undermine the values in that social system.

Think about ChatGPT and developments in AI. These might make certain roles obsolete – copywriting, translating, even some roles involving legal analysis or medical diagnoses. And if these roles go away, apparently the values of the social system will be undermined. I’m not sure that’s a logically valid conclusion, but that doesn’t matter on a Most Strongly Supported question. We should just accept that, for any social system, if technology makes certain roles obsolete, that will undermine the social system’s values.

The stimulus doesn’t lead up to any particular conclusion, so let’s jump into the answers and look for something that is most strongly supported via process of elimination.

Answer Choice (A) Social systems will have unchanging values if they are shielded from technological advancement.

The stimulus doesn’t tell us what will happen if a society does not undergo technological change. We do know that if technological change makes certain roles obsolete, that will undermine values. But what happens if technological change doesn’t happen at all? We don’t know.

If you picked this answer, you’re likely falling for the oldest trick in the book: mixing up a sufficient condition and a necessary condition. Technological change that makes roles obsolete is sufficient to lead to a change in values. But that doesn’t mean technological change is necessary for a change in values. Values can change for other reasons, such as social movements or religions.

Answer Choice (B) No type of technology will fail to undermine the values in a social system.

The stimulus doesn’t suggest that every kind of technology will undermine values. We know that it’s possible for some technologies to undermine values (via making certain roles obsolete). But we cannot hastily generalize to the conclusion that all technologies will undermine values. For example, maybe there’s a new hi-tech glove developed that helps crack your knuckles more easily. That might not put anyone out of a job. And if it doesn’t, this tech won’t necessarily have an impact on social values.

Correct Answer Choice (C) A social system whose values are not susceptible to change would not be one in which technology can eliminate economic roles.

Short explanation: (C) is the contrapositive of a claim in the stimulus.

Long explanation: This is a tough correct answer, because it doesn’t sound like anything an actual person would ever say on the basis of the stimulus. In a timed situation, it’s easier to pick (C) through process of elimination than through complete understanding of why it’s supported.

Remember, the stimulus told us:

...for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology that makes certain economic roles obsolete will tend to undermine the values in that social system.

What if there is a society whose values can never be undermined by anything? I know it doesn’t make sense based on your understanding of real life societies. But just imagine it.

In this kind of society – where values can never be undermined – is it possible for technology to make economic roles obsolete? Well, if technology did come along that made certain roles obsolete, then according to the stimulus, that technology would tend to undermine the social system’s values. But we’re imagining a society where values can never be undermined. So it wouldn’t make sense for technology to be able to make roles obsolete in this society.

If it helps, you can break down the last sentence as a conditional statement:

In any society, if technology makes some economic roles obsolete, then the values of the society are sometimes undermined.

You can kick up the condition “in any society” to the domain – this is the set of things the conditional applies to: societies.

Domain: All societies
technology makes some economic roles obsolete → the values are sometimes undermined.

What’s the contrapositive of this? Switch both sides and negate:

Domain: All societies
the values cannot be undermined → technology cannot make economic roles obsolete.

This is why (C) is supported. If a society’s values can’t change, that means they can’t be undermined, which triggers the contrapositive. That means technology can’t eliminate economic roles in that society.

Answer Choice (D) A technologically advanced society will place little value on the prestige associated with an economic role.

This is very tempting. If you chose (D), you probably reasoned as follows: We know that labor-saving technology will render economic roles obsolete which in turn will undermine the values of that society. It follows that a technologically advanced society will have rendered much or even most of their economic roles obsolete. Hence, that society will have undermined much or even most of their values. Hence, that society will place little value on the prestige associated with an economic role.

That line of reasoning is faulty for too many reasons. I’ll just spotlight three.

First, it does not follow that a technologically advanced society will have rendered much or even most of their economic roles obsolete. A technologically advanced society surely will have rendered much or perhaps most of their previous economic roles obsolete. But new roles will arise. For example, our society has rendered the hard labor associated with farming mostly obsolete which has allowed new roles (climate scientists; rocket engineers; AI programmers) to arise.

Second, focus on the phrase “little value.” We know that technological change can undermine a society’s values, if that change makes certain roles obsolete. But the stimulus doesn’t suggest anything about an absolute amount of value such as “little” or “a lot” or “low” or “high.” Perhaps a technologically advanced society places less value on one thing – let’s say, physical strength – and more value on another – typing speed. And a change in technology, if it eliminates economic roles, might increase or decrease the value associated with physical strength or typing speed. But we don’t have enough to say this society places “little” value on physical strength or any other thing.

A third issue with this answer is that it refers to a society placing value on prestige. But the stimulus only stated that the values of a social system are “embodied in the prestige” of various roles. Having the values of society reflected in the prestige of a particular role such as a doctor or lawyer is unrelated to the idea of valuing prestige itself. For example, a society in which doctors are highly prestigious reflects the society’s valuing of saving lives, healing wounds, delivering babies, etc. But that doesn’t mean this society places value on prestige. Prestige is just the byproduct of a society’s values.

Answer Choice (E) A technological innovation that is implemented in a social system foreign to the one in which it was developed will tend to undermine the foreign social system.

This is tempting based on our own sense of what has often happened in history. When Europeans brought guns and steel armor to the New World, that changed Native American societies. But the stimulus never suggests anything about what happens when we bring technology into a foreign social system. Will technology automatically make certain jobs obsolete in a foreign social system? We don’t know.

Many technological innovations may simply fit neatly into an existing social system, even if that social system is foreign to the one in which that innovation was developed. For example, if we discover alien technology that allows us to fall asleep 5 minutes faster every day, that wouldn’t necessarily change much about our society. No one’s job is threatened by this technology, and we could easily integrate the technology into our daily lives without significant change. The mere fact that this sleep-aiding technology was developed in an alien society does not mean that it will undermine our own social system.