Q1 - New technologies that promise to extend

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Explain Discrepancy

Stimulus Breakdown:
Fact 1: Investing in life extending technologies is very risky (because you have to spend lots of money to do research and gamble that you make your money back).
Fact 2: Some people still invest in such technologies.

Answer Anticipation:
Given that this investment is so risky, why do some people still do it?

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) It sounds like some people think the gamble is worth it, since it pays off so much when it wins.

(B) This doesn't explain why people are willing to take the gamble.

(C) This just says that people ALSO invest in OTHER risky investments … we still don't know WHY they do!

(D) This is very weak ("some" = at least one), and it's not clear how it's relevant. The investments we're focused on are NOT ones that initially seem likely to provide return. This answer isn't strong enough to let us say, "Oh, they choose the risky investments because the LIKELY investments ultimately don't pan out."

(E) If this removed the word "no", then it would be tempting. As is, it just reinforces the paradox.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer choice gave us a reason why someone might invest in risky life extending technologies. The answer has some good strong wording, like "generally" return "many times" the original investment, which is "much more" than what safer investments do.

#officialexplanation

[rdeuts75]

I thought B was the correct answer choice but A is. Can anyone please explain why?

Thanks

[dtangie23]

I just did this problem like twenty minutes ago, so I'll give you my interpretation of why (A) is better than (B). Though, to be honest, I was really tempted by (C).

Let's break down the stimulus...

New technology that can extend life and decrease pain requires extensive scientific research.

Investment in this technology is risky. Why? Because you can ONLY invest large amounts of money in this new technology. And, in the end, you probably won't get anything back.

For some reason, though, some people still choose to invest in these new technologies.

So, what explains this? Why would people invest in this technology if they have to pay a lot and chances are there won't be a financial return?

(A) provides the perfect answer. When you invest in these new technologies, the potential return (even if your chances are slim at getting that return) is very large. Think about someone who spends $100 on lotto tickets when the prize is very high. That person probably won't win, but s/he can't resist spending all that money on the tickets because the potential reward is enormous.

In addition, answer choice (A) downplays the significance of the returns on alternative, or safer, investments. If you go with safer investments, even if you get a return, it won't be nearly as much as the risky investment. So why not risk it?

(B) is irrelevant. It's just saying that a large amount of these technologies have been developed in the last ten years.

Are you thinking that with more variety there will be more options to choose from and, as a result, people will be more willing to invest in the new technologies if they have more to choose from?

(1) Just because there's more variety doesn't mean there's more options. I could have 3 things, each of a different variety, and I could have 500 things, all of the same variety. The latter would present me with more options to choose from.

(2) Regardless of the distinction made above, just because there is more of something, or more of a variety of something, to choose from, doesn't mean that people will actually choose.

Choice (A) is telling us exactly why people are stepping up and making the choice to invest in a certain technology...because of the potential payoff in dollars.

Sorry for the longwinded response. That was just my thinking. It's certainly subject to error.

[aileenann]

I fully endorse the response above

I thought I'd also add a few remarks on (C) since that seems to be tricky for some folks. (C) is actually out of scope from the very start because it's talking about technologies *other than* the specific ones that are the topic of the stimulus. The only way this could explain the discrepancy would be if you assumed this told you something about technology development more generally...but it's usually a sign of trouble if you find yourself reaching for an assumption

[Acing LSAT]

Just want to add that (C) besides for being out of scope (other technologies) it also does not explain why people would invest in both life extending or other technology. For all we know this is a reason people do not to invest in any riksy technology investments.

[mswang7]

Despite the high financial risks of these new tech people are still willing to invest, why?
Prephase: The possible reward outweighs the financial risk/ getting your money back. I would pay a million bucks to make my mom live longer.

A. This is saying if there is a return it will be 100 fold (arbitrary large number) as opposed to less risky investments (maybe 10 fold). The bigger the risk the bigger the reward
B. This is trying to get you to make the leap that because there have been successful attempts people have more faith therefore more likely to invest but it is out of scope.
C. Other avenues of investment are just as risky. Could me a reason but it doesn't distinguish how the life/ pain tech is different than the rest like A does.
D. Other investments that were less risky than this one have provided no financial return. So why would we bet on this one? This is the opposite of what we need
E. This is almost my preprahse but it is the opposite of what we want! No greater understanding? That gives an additional reason not to invest
If the no was removed would this be the correct answer?