With this question, I wanted you to see a bit of how the LSAT tests your skills at breaking down

argument structure. Okay, so let's see how you did. First, the question stem. Which one of the

following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the economist's argument? So here,

the LSAT straight up asks us to identify the main conclusion. Great, let's read. Economist says,

likelihood that the business will survive. Okay, so all businesses try to be more productive. Sure.

Right, why do they do this? Because it increases owners' profits and helps the business to stay

alive. Now, to me, this first sentence sounds a lot like context. It's telling me what businesses

do and why they do it. But, you know, I'm really looking out for what the author thinks about this.

You know, does she express an opinion? And if she does, that's likely to be the conclusion.

Okay, let's keep going. But not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the

business as a whole. I'm going to latch onto this word "but" at the beginning of the sentence because

it's signaling to me that we are shifting directions, very likely, very likely to the

author's argument. This word "but" helps me feel more firm in my assessment that this first line

was just context, right, and that we haven't gotten to the argument yet. Now look, I'm not

saying that any sentence before the word "but" can never be part of the author's argument. Not at all.

Okay, there are just very few things on the LSAT that can be turned into cut-and-dry rules like

that. But I am telling you that that's a common pattern. Okay, here with this word "but," we're

transitioning into the author's opinion. The author, this economist, she's telling us not all

efforts to become more productive are beneficial to the business as a whole. Now, this seems to

demand some support, right, because it's somewhat counterintuitive. I thought being productive was

better for a business, and so why is it that not all efforts are beneficial to business as a whole?

Well, let's read on. Often attempts to increase productivity decrease number of employees, which

clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.

So there's a reason, right. This is why the author believes some efforts, some efforts to increase

productivity won't help the business as a whole. It's because some of these efforts lead to

employees getting laid off, right. Think about, you know, maybe it's a factory. Maybe we automate

some stuff. Well, then the workers that get laid off are clearly hurt, right. And that's the first-order

effect. The second-order effect is that, you know, you got coworkers that saw these employees

get laid off. So that harms their sense of security in their job. So that's why it doesn't benefit the

business as a whole. Okay, so now let's try to anticipate the answer to this question. What is

the main conclusion? Well, we already said that the context cutoff is over here, which means

our argument is here. And we just have two sentences, right. Sentence in the middle here

about some efforts to increase productivity are not beneficial to business as a whole. And then

this other claim about workers getting laid off, which hurts them, obviously, but then also has a

second-order effect hurting the sense of security of their former coworkers. So really now the

question just reduces to which way does the support flow? Is this sentence supporting this, or is this

sentence supporting this? Well, if we ask the author, hey, you know, why should I believe that

not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to business as a whole? Why should I

believe this? The author would respond, well, look, because some of those efforts lead to layoffs,

which harm the employees that are laid off, and it harms the feeling of security in the remaining

employees. That's why. So that's strong evidence that the support flows this way. In other words,

here's the conclusion. This is the premise, right? This here is the conclusion. This here is the

support. Now, you could try to flip it around, but it just wouldn't make sense. You know, we could ask,

hey, you know, why should I believe that often attempts to increase productivity decrease the

number of employees, which harms the employees and harms the sense of security of the remaining ones?

See, if I ask that, you're not going to say, well, because some efforts to increase productivity are

not beneficial to business as a whole. That doesn't make sense. And the reason it doesn't

make sense is because this last sentence is describing specific effects that the author

is viewing as harmful to a business. Whereas this claim, this claim is general. It's just

saying that some efforts to increase productivity won't be beneficial to the business as a whole.

This general claim doesn't give us any reason to think that these are the specific effects.

But on the other hand, if we accept these specific effects as true, then they do provide us reason

to believe this more general claim that, yeah, there are some efforts that don't benefit the

entire business. Okay, so that's how we can tell that this is the main conclusion. And this is the

premise. This is just context introducing the topic. Okay, so now that we've isolated what the

main conclusion is right over here, we're going to put on blinders, and we're going to go into

the answers, and we're going to find an answer that best restates this claim. Okay, so first up,

welfare of the business's employees, that action cannot be good for the business as a whole. Okay,

so now I'm going to eliminate this quickly and move on to (B), because this doesn't sound anything

like what I've already identified as the main point. And for Main Conclusion questions,

it allows you to do this kind of shallow analysis. It allows you to do this kind of quick

eliminate and move on. And you should get used to doing that. Time is your most precious resource.

Now, I'm going to bet that some of you picked (A), so I do want to spend a bit more time talking

about why it's wrong. And first, I'm going to have to take a guess at why you picked (A).

And my guess is that you think the author agrees with this. Now here, let's pick apart what (A) is

saying. An action taken to secure the survival of the business, for example, like laying off

workers, like for example, you know, replacing assembly line workers with machines that automate.

Right, so that's an action. Let's say it was taken to ensure the survival of business. Of course,

it fails to enhance the welfare of the business's employees because you fire a bunch of people,

and then, you know, the people that remain, their morale is hurt. Right, so if that's an action,

then that action cannot be good for a business as a whole. Now, you might think the author agrees

with this, but surely you can see that that's not what the author is saying here. Right,

this is not the main point, regardless of whether the author agrees with this. The author's main

point is that just there are some efforts to increase productivity that do not benefit the

business as a whole. This is a claim that this kind of effort exists. There are efforts taken

to increase productivity which are not beneficial to the business as a whole. That set of efforts exists.

Here's an example. This is the main point. (A) is providing us with something like a rule or a

principle. Like, if an action triggers these conditions, then, you know what, I can render

judgment, then it's not good for the business. Right, and like at that level, I hope you can

see this is just very different from this kind of claim. We're not rendering judgment here.

Right, we're simply saying there are some efforts taken to increase productivity that are not

beneficial to the business as a whole. Okay, and this is also why I don't think the author actually

agrees with this. Right, but I don't want to argue that line. Right, in fact, if you want to see that

line of argument, just, you know, read the text lesson. I wrote that out here, but I want to take

a different line of argument. I just, I think that even if I concede the point that the author agrees

with this, it's just still a different point from what the actual main point, main conclusion is.

the business as a whole. Yeah, this is correct. This is correct because it is the most accurate

expression of the main conclusion. It's effectively a restatement of this sentence.

Now, I think in order to see that, you have to recognize the logical equivalence between saying

not all apples are red. Right, not all apples are red. What does that mean? That means some apples

are not red. Right, not all apples are red just means that the number of apples that are red is

less than 100%. Right, there's at least one apple that's not red. That's what this "not all"

is saying. Right, and okay, so that's equivalent to just some apples are not red. So here,

not all efforts to increase productivity, there's the apples, are, here's the red,

beneficial to business as a whole. So if not all apples are red, that means some apples, some

efforts to increase productivity, are not red, are not beneficial to business as a whole. And that's

exactly what it says. Some measures, right, taken by a business to increase productivity, what,

fail to be beneficial, are not beneficial to the business as a whole. Okay, so don't worry if this

translation between "not all" and "some" was a bit confusing. We have an entire unit with a lot of

lessons talking in detail about this logic. Next up, (C) says, only if the employees of a business

how like in Answer Choice (A), I told you because it's a Main Conclusion question, you can just

kind of quickly eliminate it because it doesn't match? Same thing here. In fact, I want to

encourage you to develop, to cultivate that skill of knowing when to move on as early as possible

moment, right? Speed is absolutely crucial. The reason why I feel like after this word I can move

on is because it's just like, nowhere, forget the conclusion, or forget the conclusion. Even if I

expand it out to this entire thing, right, the entire stimulus, they didn't talk about employees

being owners, right? That's just not something they discuss. So this can't be the main point.

Okay, so now let's, uh, what does it say? Just for the sake of fully analyzing (C), only if the

employees are also owners will the interests of employees and owners coincide, enabling measures that will be

beneficial to the business as a whole. Okay, so this is saying, you know, here's a requirement, right? You

want to have measures that benefit business as a whole, right? You want to have that?

Okay, great. Well, here's a requirement. You have to have this. You got to have this thing where the

owners are also the employees, and that's how you make sure that the interests coincide. And only if

you have that can you have measures that benefit business as a whole, right? So that's what (C) is

trying to say. Here's a requirement. Now, we talk more about conditional logic in a later lesson,

so don't worry about this yet, but hopefully you recognize that this is just not what the conclusion

claim is, right? They're very different claims. Next up, (D) is very tempting. It says there is no

this first line. In fact, I can't find any fault with it. If it's true that every business strives

to do something, then there is no business that doesn't try to do the thing, right? They just

introduced a double negative here, but it's saying the same thing. And, you know, what makes (D) even

more attractive is maybe you've spotted this word "for," and you remember, hey, "for" indicates support,

right? "For" indicates support. Why should I believe that every single business strives to increase

productivity? Well, here's why. Because increased profits for the owners and because the likelihood

that business will survive, so there you have the support. But the problem is this entire thing is

just context, right? Look, let's imagine in an alternate universe, the economist just, you know,

stopped talking after the first line, right? She did not tell me anything else except this first

sentence. Okay, if that's the case, I'm picking (D), right? That's the main conclusion. But that's

not the world we're in. She told us the first line, and then she kept going. And in fact, she kept

going by using the word "but" to introduce the signal of transition. Yeah, yeah, this is true.

Every business strives to increase productivity. But listen, here's what I really want you to

believe, right? Here's what I want you to understand. It's not the case that every single

effort to increase productivity benefits the business as a whole, right? That's my main point.

That's my main conclusion. Why should you believe me? Because look, here are some examples. Okay,

so that's why (D) is not the right answer. And lastly, (E) says, decreasing the number of employees

paraphrasing this last bit of language here. But this is all just premise. It's support. It's not

the main conclusion. Okay, so that's why (E) is not right. Okay, so takeaways. How did you do on this?

I hope you got it right, kind of, but I actually don't care because that's not the point. The point

is you learn something from this, right? The point is, look, we had to distinguish between context

and argument. This is not the last time you're going to see this pattern of opening with something,

something, but okay, pay attention. Here's what I really want to tell you. This happens all the

time. Okay, we had to distinguish between premises and conclusions without the presence of any

indicator words. We also had to focus on exactly what the question was asking to not get sidetracked

by, like, (A), for example. You know, we also had to figure out that not all Xs are Ys means that

some Xs are not Ys, right? So there's a lot of skills here. And if you had trouble with this

question, that's fine. It's the perfect opportunity to ask yourself why. What specific concepts were

you fuzzy on? What skills need more work?