Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 29 - Section 4 - Question 13
November 24, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 13
November 24, 2012Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.
Speaker 1 Summary
The plant manager says that switching to a new copper-smelting process would be expensive and unprofitable. How do we know? First, the new equipment is expensive. Second, the new process costs more to run. This second point is supported by an explanation that the new process requires cooling then reheating copper (making it a sub-conclusion).
Speaker 2 Summary
The supervisor disagrees with the plant manager that the new process has higher running costs. This isn’t explicitly stated, but is implied by the support the supervisor gives: the new process is very fuel-efficient. We can infer that this supports a disagreement about the running cost because it would allow savings on fuel.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. This is the claim that the new process costs more to run: the plant manager agrees, but the supervisor implicitly disagrees.
A
whether the new copper-smelting process releases less sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere than the current process
The plant manager agrees with this claim, but the supervisor never expresses an opinion. The supervisor’s argument is unrelated to sulfur dioxide emissions, so we can infer that the supervisor accepts the plant manager’s claim on this point.
B
whether the new copper-smelting process is more expensive to run than the current process
The plant manager agrees that the new process is more expensive to run, but the supervisor’s argument indicates disagreement. This isn’t explicitly stated, but the supervisor provides support for the implied conclusion that the new process isn’t more expensive to run.
C
whether the new process should be adopted in the copper-smelting plant
Neither speaker expresses an opinion about this. It may be tempting to assume the speakers agree on this because the new process would be unprofitable, but we don’t know how much they care about sulfur dioxide emissions. Either way, the speakers don’t disagree on this point.
D
whether closed copper-smelting furnaces are more fuel-efficient than open furnaces
The supervisor agrees with this claim, but the plant manager never expresses an opinion. The supervisor uses this as support for a disagreement with a single point the plant manager makes, but we don’t know what the plant manager thinks about fuel efficiency.
E
whether cooling and reheating the copper will cost more than moving it in molten form
The plant manager agrees with this claim, but the supervisor doesn’t indicate an opinion. The supervisor’s argument doesn’t dispute that cooling and reheating the copper costs more, just that the overall cost of running the new process is greater.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 17
November 24, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 17
November 24, 2012The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city’s founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question, “Can we really afford to?” I can only respond, “Can we afford not to?”
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The citizen concludes that the mayor is incorrect that the city can’t afford to restore city hall, which would strain the city’s limited budget. In support, the citizen explains that the building is the last link to the time of the city’s founding, and that preserving history helps to maintain respect for the city government. This supports the sub-conclusion that the city can’t afford not to restore city hall.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is an “equivocation” flaw, where the same word is used in two different ways. The citizen rejects the mayor’s point about financial “affordability.” This is supported with an appeal to cultural or historic “affordability.”
A
The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
The citizen’s appeal to history isn’t solely emotional, because it also includes the claim that history helps to maintain the city’s authority, which is a more pragmatic consideration.
B
The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”
The mayor’s claim that the city can’t “afford” the restoration refers to financial affordability. The citizen’s question of whether the city can “afford” not to restore the building refers instead to cultural or historic considerations, sidestepping the mayor’s point.
C
The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor.
The citizen doesn’t appeal to the mayor’s authority—especially because the argument is aimed at discrediting the mayor’s position!
D
The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.
The citizen accepts the mayor’s point that the restoration would be expensive, but there’s no reason to think that claim is incorrect.
E
The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.”
The citizen’s argument doesn’t rely on words such as “outdated” and “luxury” at all. Those words are part of the mayor’s argument, with which the citizen disagrees.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 32 - Section 4 - Question 25
November 23, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 35 - Section 4 - Question 19
November 23, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 19
November 23, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 4 - Question 19
November 22, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 19
November 22, 2012
Summary
The author concludes that the information in typical broadcast news stories is poorly organized. This is based on the following:
Most people feel that they’re confused by info in broadcast news. This could be due to the info being delivered too quickly or to its being poorly organized. But, the author attempts to eliminate the “too quickly” explanation by pointing out that the content of a typical news story shows that most people can handle far more density of info than the average info density of a news story.
Most people feel that they’re confused by info in broadcast news. This could be due to the info being delivered too quickly or to its being poorly organized. But, the author attempts to eliminate the “too quickly” explanation by pointing out that the content of a typical news story shows that most people can handle far more density of info than the average info density of a news story.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the fact people can handle a higher density of info than what’s found in a typical news story indicates that people are not confused by the news info being delivered too quickly.
The author also overlooks the possibility that there are other explanations besides being delivered too quickly or being poorly organized that might account for why people are confused by info from broadcast news.
The author also overlooks the possibility that there are other explanations besides being delivered too quickly or being poorly organized that might account for why people are confused by info from broadcast news.
A
It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.
Necessary, because if this isn’t true — if the number of news stories that a person is exposed to is the source of confusion — then that undermines the author’s theory that the reason for confusion must be the poor organization of stories. Notice that the author’s premise concerning information density only related to the density of info in a typical story; this overlooks the potential impact of being exposed to many stories.
B
Poor organization of information in a news story makes it impossible to understand the information.
Not necessary, because the argument concerns the cause of confusion. One can still be confused by the info in a story, even if it’s possible to understand the info.
C
Being exposed to more broadcast news stories within a given day would help a person to better understand the news.
Not necessary, because the author believes poor organization is the cause of confusion. So although the author thinks better organization would help someone be less confused, that doesn’t imply the author must think that having more news stories would help someone be less confused.
D
Most people can cope with a very high information density.
We know that most people can cope with more density than that found in a typical news story. This doesn’t imply the author thinks most people can cope with a “very high” info density. Maybe the info density of a news story is low, and people can cope with just slightly more.