Q10 - Air traffic controllers and nuclear power

[jklein1233]

I'm a bit confused about this one... I chose C as the answer and can't seem to understand why that is the wrong answer.

This is a pretty straightforward argument:

Premises: Air traffic workers aren't allowed to work long hours because doing so would jeopardize lives. Doctors in residency training have to work long hours (80 per week).

Conclusion: Therefore these same restrictions should be put on doctor's work time because they too are engaged in work of a life-or-death nature.

The question asks for the assumption this argument depends on. C says "the more hours one works in a week, the less satisfactorily one performs one's work". To me this is absolutely necessary for the argument to work. Without this assumption, why would it matter that they work long hours? Lives wouldn't be jeopardized if peoples performance wasn't affected by the long hours.

The correct answer is A "There is no indispensable aspect of residency training that requires resident physicians to work exceptionally long hours"

I don't see how this is a better answer than C... any input from ATLAS would be much appreciated.

[bbirdwell]

This is a great problem! (C) sounds like such a good choice at first!

This one comes down to the details, and the difference between a necessary assumption and a sufficient assumption.

(C) is an example of the latter. Sure, if it's true, it's enough to bridge the gap and make the argument work. But it's not required for the argument to work because it goes too far. This is an argument about physicians. It does not HAVE to be true that EVERYONE gets worse at their jobs when working long hours in order for the argument to work.

Ask yourself this question when you think about (C): "In order to conclude that physicians should work shorter hours, does it HAVE to be true that janitors, programmers, waiters, baristas, and flight attendants get worse at their jobs when they work long hours?"

No. They could even get better at their jobs after long hours and wouldn't affect this argument about doctors.

(C) would've been the correct answer on a question that said "Which of the following, if assumed, would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn?" That's a question that asks for a sufficient assumption.

Now take (A) and negate it. This is the test for necessary assumptions. If the negated version destroys the argument, it's necessary.
"There IS an indispensable act of residency that requires working long hours."

Oops. Now that conclusion doesn't sound so good. That's how we know this assumption is required.

As for the other answers:

(B) is too strong. We don't need physicians to have a more direct effect. The argument already told us they are engaged in life-or-death situations.

(C) is too broad, as is discussed above.

(D) is about people not doing life-or-death work, and this argument isn't about them.

(E) is about what folks want. Who cares?

[jklein1233]

Thanks for the explanation, I overlooked that detail the first time around. I know we went over this in my class but I guess I just forgot about this rule. In general, are most questions asking for necessary or sufficient assumptions? I remember my teacher saying that its an 80/20 split but I just can't remember which is more common in assumption questions.

[noah]

Here's how the necc./suff. assumption questions break down over the last few tests:

PT57: 4 necessary, 3 sufficient

PT58: 8 necessary, 4 sufficient

PT59: 3 necessary, 3 sufficient

TOTAL: 15 necessary, 10 sufficient

So, there's a general leaning towards necessary, but it varies from test to test. The important thing is to be able to recognize which you're facing. Look for those key words: depends, required, necessary, etc.

BTW, the negation test is more useful for necessary assumption questions, since if an assumption is sufficient but not necessary, negating it may not destroy the argument since there could be another way to get to the conclusion.

[jklein1233]

thanks for the help.

[jrany12]

Do you think you could explain how to approach and solve questions to sufficient assumptions vs necessary assumptions? Thanks!

[noah]

That's actually a huge question! I don't think I can do that justice in a forum post.

But, I'll say this: the difference is that a necessary assumption will only partly fill the gap but is required (if you negate it, the argument falls apart); a sufficient one will fill the gap completely, and perhaps more; and a necessary and sufficient one will be required and enough to fill the gap.

Occasionally, the LSAT will provide a sufficient answer to a necessary question - thus it would be wrong.

Either way, your job is to find the core of the argument, evaluate the logic and find an answer that fills the gap.

I hope that helps. If you have a specific question, go ahead and post it.

[rbetita]

When I was reviewing this, I picked B over A. Does the fact that there is a slight term shift from the premises to conclusion have anything to do with it?

For example, in the premises it talks about 'physicians in residency training' required to work 80 hours, and in the conclusion you fast forward to 'resident physicians.' I know that sounds like a slight shift, but I my mind I would think, "Ok, the assumption has to assume that the long hours for residency training aren't really needed for the physicians."

And is B incorrect because the degree of impact on the lives of others doesn't really address the gap between long hours and resident physicians?

[noah]

I don't think there's a significant terms shift in the stimulus. And yes, (B) is incorrect because it isn't necessary that resident physicians have a more direct effect - what if it was the same?

The gap is pretty hard to see in this core:

Conclusion: resident MDs should not work long hours.

Why: because they are engaged in work of a life and death nature, and others who are engaged in such work cannot work long hours.

The gap is a "what else?" moment. Is there something else that might make it so that even though resident MDs are in the same boat as other professionals, different rules should apply. (For example, what if working long hours prepares them for the rigors of medicine? Or, maybe there's a shortage of resident doctors.)

[robowarren]

I just wanted to say thanks! Your earlier answer explaining how the question was looking for N versus S was a huge help for me. I have been struggling with assumption questions because I keep getting confused with how to answer them, and have had a hard time finding an explanation that paints the picture clearly.

Thank you.

[alana.canfield]

(C) is an example of the latter. Sure, if it's true, it's enough to bridge the gap and make the argument work. But it's not required for the argument to work because it goes too far. This is an argument about physicians. It does not HAVE to be true that EVERYONE gets worse at their jobs when working long hours in order for the argument to work.

I think (C) goes too far in a second way also- the specific correlation that the more hours you work, the less satisfactorily you perform your job, goes too far in my opinion. This means a graph of "hours worked" vs "satisfactorily performing your job" would always be decreasing and have a negative slope (saying that the more you work, the less satisfactorily you perform). But the argument would stand in a variety of other scenarios, for example : if the graph only had a negative slope from 5 hours up to about 80 hours but below 5 hours had a positive slope (ie, the first 5 hours you work you are actually getting more and more satisfactory because you are getting into a groove, but then eventually you start performing less satisfactorily because you are tired).

[nflamel69]

I approached this question as an analogy argument. the argument used example of air traffic controllers and nuclear plant operators to resident physicians. For an analogy to work, the assumption is that the analogy is correct and there is no significant difference between the 2 scenarios.

Can any geeks clarify if my line of reasoning is right? I didn't consider S assump or N assump at all.

[noah]

(C) is an example of the latter. Sure, if it's true, it's enough to bridge the gap and make the argument work. But it's not required for the argument to work because it goes too far. This is an argument about physicians. It does not HAVE to be true that EVERYONE gets worse at their jobs when working long hours in order for the argument to work.

I think (C) goes too far in a second way also- the specific correlation that the more hours you work, the less satisfactorily you perform your job, goes too far in my opinion. This means a graph of "hours worked" vs "satisfactorily performing your job" would always be decreasing and have a negative slope (saying that the more you work, the less satisfactorily you perform). But the argument would stand in a variety of other scenarios, for example : if the graph only had a negative slope from 5 hours up to about 80 hours but below 5 hours had a positive slope (ie, the first 5 hours you work you are actually getting more and more satisfactory because you are getting into a groove, but then eventually you start performing less satisfactorily because you are tired).

Very slick! Thanks for adding that.

[noah]

I approached this question as an analogy argument. the argument used example of air traffic controllers and nuclear plant operators to resident physicians. For an analogy to work, the assumption is that the analogy is correct and there is no significant difference between the 2 scenarios.

Can any geeks clarify if my line of reasoning is right? I didn't consider S assump or N assump at all.

It does work in this case, but I worry that you might be pulling more stuff into the core than you need to. The bit about air traffic controllers is just to introduce the idea of limiting hours to make things safe, which is then referenced in the meat of the argument.

What made your approach work is that it leads you to "could there be a reason this premise doesn't link to this conclusion, i.e. is there something else we need to consider".

[chunsun.b]

The reason that this question is hard is that the negation of the right answer, (A), does not attack the reasoning that led to the conclusion of the argument (that is, the analogy between nuclear power workers and residency training recipients); rather, it merely attacks the conclusion of the argument (that is, residency trainers recipients should not overwork).

The nuisance for me is that the same is true for answer choice (A) of Question 8 of this section. Here, again, (A) attacks the conclusion of the argument--that the trend should stop--but does not attack the reasoning that led to the conclusion--that the inexperienced don't fare well in universities. Annoyingly, though, that is not the answer for this question, because there exists a better choice, (C), that attacks the conclusion by attacking the reasoning that led to the conclusion.

(link to Question 8: q8-the-laboratory-experiment-the-most-t1728.html)

[PhoebeL747]

Is it possible to think (C) as a premise booster? I thought this choice just reinforces one of the premises-the first sentence, and that's how I eliminated (C). Am I wrong? Can a Sufficient Assumption also work as a premise booster?

[YurikaC738]

I think this question is tough because the negation of answer A does not directly destroy the argument. However, if we think about like this: there is indispensable aspect of residency training ONLY, then there is no chance that we can curtail the time of training; otherwise, the training would no longer considered as residency training (the residency training can not exist). That is WHY the residency training is not comparable to aforementioned work like nuclear power plant operation.