Q11 - In order to maintain a high

[mcrittell]

Pared it down to A and D, ultimately and incorrectly selected A.

I don't know if this is advisable, but I broke it down into conditional statements:

1) maintain hi SOL-->maintain functioning infrastruct
2) m investment in infrastruct's improvement-->rise in SOL

Conclusion) rising SOL--> improving infrastruct
Looks as if the A incorrect reverses premise 2.
Should be rising SOL-->improving infrastruct

Then I still have no idea, haha. I tried! lol

[mra08d]

Hey, my two cents:

The arguement proceeds to tell us that there is a particular way to cause, over time, a rise in a nations standard of living. It concludes by saying that if a nations standard of living is rising, then the way mentioned to raise it for sure, (investment in the improvement of its infrastructure) must have occurred.

This should strike us as strange...Aren't there often many different potential causes for any particular effect? Just because one thing could cause another thing doesn't mean that if the effect occurs then that one PARTICULAR cause necessarily preceded it.

Hope that maybe helps!

[Daniella.owusu]

I didn't read this as a causal claim, but rather as a conditional relationship. If:

major investment---->corresponding rise in standard of living

The conclusion then says that if:
Rise in standard of living---->>major investment


The flaw here is that it confuses a condition necessary for an outcome with one that is sufficient. In other words, it assumes that because we have a rise in the standard of living that we have met the sufficient. But just because you have a nation whose living is on the rise doesn't guarantee that it is because of major investment on infrastructure. A rise in living could've been due to many different things.

D) is the correct answer because it addresses the exact flaw. A rise doesn't have to be because of major investment.

Other wrong answers:
A) this is out of scope and therefore, irrelevant. The argument isn't concerned about nations that fail to invest in infrastructure.
B) this is also a non pertinent issue. The fact that many nations are unable to invest doesn't make a difference to the flaw
C) is wrong because the length of time isn't germane to the issue. There is a sufficient/necessary confusion in the stimulus, and the length of time doesn't matter.
E) this is irrelevant. Matters other than improving infrastructure are not our concern. And if it was our concern, it would still be incorrect because there is no mention of the standard of living not needing to be the result of major improvements.


Hope this helps!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument concludes that a nation whose standard of living is on the rise can be safely assumed to be a nation that has invested heavily in improving its infrastructure. Two reasons are offered for this conclusion. First, to maintain a high standard of living, a nation must maintain a high standard of living. Second, major improvements in infrastructure will, over time, lead to improvements in the standard of living.

Correct Answer
The argument mistakes a sufficient condition for one that is necessary. That a nation that improves its infrastructure will see a higher standard of living does not imply the reverse. There could be potentially many things that result in a higher standard of living for the people of a nation. Answer choice (C) correctly points this out.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is irrelevant because the argument does not rely on the assumption that a nation that fails to invest in infrastructure will see a decline in its standard of living.
(B) is irrelevant. The issue is not whether all nations are capable of making investments in infrastructure, but whether that is the sole means by which a nation can raise its standard of living.
(C) describes an issue the argument considered. Nothing in the argument assumes the rise in standards of living would occur quickly.
(E) describes an issue irrelevant to the argument. The argument did not assume that governments could always invest in infrastructure, but rather describes a benefit from doing so.

[513852276]

If "A need not to be the result of B", it means "A" could be caused by B, or C or anything else. Could it also mean "B" could result to A, or M, or the others?

[maryadkins]

If "A need not to be the result of B", it means "A" could be caused by B, or C or anything else. Could it also mean "B" could result to A, or M, or the others?

A need not be the result of B means that A could be the result of something OTHER than B—A does not depend on B. So yes, the first part of your question is true. A could maybe be caused by B or C or whatever you want—but we don't know what.

As to the second part of your question, I think you mean, "Could it also mean B could result in A and other things?"

Good question. It doesn't tell us. So what does that mean? It means sure, maybe B could cause A, but we don't know for certain. It means maybe B could cause other things, too, but likewise, we don't know—we don't know WHAT B causes based on this logical sentence alone.

In short, we don't know anything about B based on the statement "A need not to be the result of B" except that it is not the sole cause of A. Everything else is up in the air.

[contropositive]

In this stimulus, it looks like only the 2nd and last sentence are important to arrive to D

III = investment towards improving infrastructure
RSL = rise in standard of living

2nd sentence

investment towards improving infrastructure, then rise in standard of living

III --> RSL

Therefore,

rise in standard of living, then investment, then investment towards improving infrastructure

RSL ---> III


can you see the flaw in the conclusion? its the incorrect reversal of the 2nd sentence. We know that if we have III then we have RSL. But just because we have RSL does not mean we have III, which is what D is stating and making it the right answer choice.

Incorrect answers

A) looks like the contropositive of the second sentence. ANY indicates sufficient. So we have /RSL ---> /III so i guess its strenghtning the 2nd statement that's all. no impact on conclusion drawn.

B) out of scope.

C) out of scope.

E) out of scope.

[haeeunjee]

Would (A) be correct if it said: "a nation that fails to invest in its infrastructure may still experience an increase in its standard of living due to other factors" ? (in other words, the negation of the stimulus' conclusion, which was "rise in standard of living --> heavy investment"). Rise in standard of living can co-exist withOUT heavy investment.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes it would!

[neliusw222]

I feel like this is a really easy question but the approach is not clear to me

This is how I approached it:

1.In order to maintain high standard-must maintain functioning infrastructure- conditional
2.Investment in infrastructure leads to rise in standard of living-Causal
Conclusion: high Standard Of living rise means investment in infrastructure
- this is an error because taking the contrapositive of a causal statement means you are assuming that there is a single cause

Assumption:Only infrastructure can increase the standards of living