Q12 - Criminologist: The main purpose of most

[catie0128]

I had it narrowed down to B and D but chose B. Isnt it necessary to assume that some of the criminal organizations will be aware that the technologies will generate profit?

[elizabeth.r.casanova]

P1: Purpose (criminal organizations) = profits
+
P2: Biotech and info tech revolutions --> enormous profits
=
Conclusion: Criminal organizations --> will become increasingly involved in these tech revolutions

Correct Sufficient Assumption (D): In order to jump to this conclusion, we need to fill the gap between the (purpose = profits) and ("try to become increasingly involved" in the biotech and info tech areas).

Otherwise, the conclusion cannot be properly inferred without this sufficient assumption. Just because the criminal's purpose and the effects of tech revolutions are the same (producing profits), this doesn't guarantee that criminal orgs will try to become involved in the tech industry. What if the criminal organizations recognizes the costs of trying to become involved in the tech industry is drastically greater than the enormous profits that would be generated if successful? Then, this could be a situation where the org's purpose isn't going to be fulfilled by attempting to generate profits through the tech industry. Moreover, there are could be various other sufficient activities/causes that produce enormous profits.

Why (B) is incorrect: As Catie said, I believe this is a necessary assumption. Would love further comments/opinions regarding this. If you negate this answer to "no criminal orgs will ever know that the biotech and info tech revolutions guarantee enormous profits, then the argument won't work. (Based on the conclusion and reasoning: they will "TRY [so intent] to become increasingly involved in the tech areas because their purpose and the tech revolutions effects are the same [generate cash money!].)

[LSAT-Chang]

I would love to know if answer choice (B) would be a necessary assumption. If this Q had been asking for a necessary assumption instead of a sufficient one, would (B) be correct over (D)? Since (D) is talking of "ANY organization" when the argument is only concerned with criminal organizations -- so it's not NECESSARY?

[d.andrew.chen]

(B) is definitely a "defender" (if you use powerscore) type necessary assumption. I misread the stimulus and picked it...if you negate it, as the previous poster said, the argument doesn't work. But obviously, the question isn't asking for a necessary assumption.

[aebq196234]

just out of curiosity, how are we able to go from criminal to any organization.

[jelgamal]

I have the same issue with this question. How do we go from criminal to any?

[samueljstone]

I know that it has been quite a bit since someone posted about this question, but I am curious about the shift from "most criminal organizations" to "any organization" (in D).

I wound up picking B, as I took D to have a shift in scope, perhaps even a detail-creeper. Any opinions about this one?

[mchelle]

The way I approached this question was focusing more on the argument's inherent reasoning than trying to figure out whether the question type was necessary or sufficient assumption. I was also between (B) and (D). I ended up choosing (D) because it seemed to directly impact the argument, and therefore served as a crucial assumption, whereas (B) was more ambiguous.

The argument reasoning is: criminal organizations will try to get more involved in biotech and IT revolutions that have good prospects in generating profits, because the purpose of most criminal organizations is to make profits. The conclusion makes a leap from its premise, from the stated purpose of the organization to its active involvement.

(B): Even if some criminal organizations are aware of biotech/IT revolutions' potential, it doesn't translate into their involvement in these areas. Maybe they are aware, but don't have to get involved because they are already fulfilling their purpose generating profits in some other areas. So I would say this is neither necessary nor sufficient for the argument.

(D) is therefore correct because it directly affects the argument, as previous posters have mentioned.

I would really appreciate if someone can provide some feedback on my thought process! Thanks!

[christine.defenbaugh]

There are a ton of great questions being tossed back and forth in this thread! I'd like to clear up some confusion surrounding necessary vs sufficient assumptions, if I may.

First, a warning: DO NOT THINK OF NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT ASSUMPTIONS AS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CATEGORIES. There are many assumptions that are both. Now that I've got the motherly nagging out of the way....

Necessary Assumptions are like oxygen to an argument. Take them away, and the argument dies a painful death. If you think of an assumption as a bridge between the premise and the conclusion, the necessary assumption would be any and all critical stones in the bridge. Take them out, and the bridge falls down. One critical stone, by itself, may not get you all the way to the conclusion, but without you'll be in big trouble.

Sufficient Assumptions simply make the argument work. The are guaranteed to get you all the way from the premise to the conclusion if true, and they might just keep going even further! The fact that the bridge continues into a road that leads all the way to Oz is just fine - all you care about is whether you can get to the conclusion.

elizabeth.r.casanova above lays out the analysis for this question quite nicely above.

(D) is correct because if this rule is true, it guarantees our conclusion is solid. If every profit-purpose org would try, then surely the criminal organizations would!

aebq196234, jelgamal, and samueljstone all raise the excellent question: why is it permissible to go from "criminal orgs" to "any orgs".

Sufficient assumptions are allowed to be too big! Since the purpose of a sufficient assumption is to guarantee that the conclusion will follow, it doesn't matter if they go even further, and prove too much. Can you still get to the conclusion? If so, that's all that matters!

The fact that this assumption proves more than it strictly needs to means that it is not a Necessary Assumption. But since we're looking for a Sufficient Assumption, that doesn't matter!



(B)
A number of you asked whether (B) was a Necessary Assumption: it is! If we negated it, the argument would fall apart. If no criminal orgs were even aware of these awesome profits, it's hard to conclude they'd try to get involved.

But this question is asking for a Sufficient Assumption, and (B) can't do that job, for a couple of reasons:
1) just becomes some criminal orgs are aware doesn't mean that all are.
2) just because they are aware of the profits doesn't mean they will necessarily go after them by getting involved.


The Other Wrong Answers
(A) This is essentially reversed from what would guarantee the conclusion, by claiming that if the conclusion is true, then the premise must also be true.
(D) Just because they've gotten involved in profit activities in the past doesn't guarantee they'll do it again in the future.
(E) Just because criminal orgs are willing to become involved in legal activites doesn't guarantee they will do so in this case.



To address a final question:

The way I approached this question was focusing more on the argument's inherent reasoning than trying to figure out whether the question type was necessary or sufficient assumption. I was also between (B) and (D). I ended up choosing (D) because it seemed to directly impact the argument, and therefore served as a crucial assumption, whereas (B) was more ambiguous.

<snip>

(B): Even if some criminal organizations are aware of biotech/IT revolutions' potential, it doesn't translate into their involvement in these areas. Maybe they are aware, but don't have to get involved because they are already fulfilling their purpose generating profits in some other areas. So I would say this is neither necessary nor sufficient for the argument.

mchelle, you've got some great reasoning going on here, but you're labelling some of your analysis incorrectly.

The reasons you lay out for dismissing (B) are awesome reasons why it is not a sufficient assumption. What you describe as 'directly impacting the argument' seems to be whether the assumption can guarantee the conclusion. And for this question, that's awesome, since our task is to find a sufficient assumption.

But had this question been asking for a necessary assumption, (B) would have been a solid correct answer, and (D) would have been definitively incorrect (as it proves too much to be strictly necessary). This is why it is so critical to read the question stem carefully to determine what kind of assumption we're meant to be looking for.

Does that make sense?



I hope this helps clear up some of the confusion about the relationship between Necessary and Sufficient Assumptions!

[GodLovesUgly]

Not sure if anyone responds to these posts anymore, but any help would be awesome! Thanks Christine for the great response and for providing clarity to a murky question. I chose B and understand why D is the credited response, although I am still of the belief that B is too close to being correct, especially on questions #12. My question is that when you say the question "is looking for a sufficient assumption" I am confused as to where in the stimulus you are able to confidently decipher that we are in fact looking for a sufficient assumption. Thanks so much for all your help...

[rachellewrx]

Not sure if anyone responds to these posts anymore, but any help would be awesome! Thanks Christine for the great response and for providing clarity to a murky question. I chose B and understand why D is the credited response, although I am still of the belief that B is too close to being correct, especially on questions #12. My question is that when you say the question "is looking for a sufficient assumption" I am confused as to where in the stimulus you are able to confidently decipher that we are in fact looking for a sufficient assumption. Thanks so much for all your help...

I realized that the question is asking for a sufficient assumption from the question stem. It states" the conclusion ....is inferred if which ....is assumed". Put it in a different order, it should be" if which......is assumed, then the conclusion....is inferred". In other words, it means" if correct answer is true, then the conclusion in the stimulus is true". So the correct answer would be a sufficient assumption.

[rachel.zuliniak]

After taking a second look at this question I think I have a little more clarity about the B & D problem.

To recap:

Conclusion: Criminal organizations will undoubtedly become increasingly involved in these areas.

Why? Criminal organizations main purpose is profit. Bio and info tech will be enormously profitable.

Gaps: Why specifically will they become involved in this set of profitable ventures? Why wouldn't they stick to ones they already know? Or something easier? We need to fill the gap about why seeking profit leads to this specific profitable organization.

B) I picked this answer the first some because it seems softer with "at least some". However, the issue I would take with it is that it uses the phrase "become aware that". The conclusion says they will undoubtedly become involved. So what if they're aware of it? That doesn't fill the gap we found above. They are probably aware of a lot of profitable criminal activity. Why this one?

D) I thought this answer was too strong at first, but I think that is the test maker's trick here. If all organizations whose main purpose is profit will become involved in this technological revolution we've actually filled our gap sufficiently.

To put it another way:

Stimulus: The main purpose of most astronauts is to go to the moon. NASA promises to go to the moon. Therefore, astronauts will increasingly start to work for NASA.

B) At least some astronauts are or will at some point become aware of NASA and its promise to go to the moon. So?

D) Any career whose purpose it is to go to the moon will try to become increasingly involved in NASA because they promise to go to the moon.

[SerenaW274]

Not sure if anyone still reads these, but I am trying to understand with more clarity why C is wrong. I see why D is correct but I am having a hard time proving C is wrong.

The way I read this argument
P1 Main purpose of criminal organizations = profit
P2 Revolutions in tech = profit
P3 (Assuming answer c) Criminal organizations go into EVERY activity that promises profit

Conclusion: Criminal organizations will become involved in these areas.

Can someone help explain a this a little bit better for me?

[mrosa1210]

Answer choice C states that criminal organizations are already heavily involved in every activity that promises profits. This answer choice only tells us that in the past and present criminal organizations are involved in these endeavors. What it does not tell us is whether they will be involved in these activities in the future. The conclusion states that they will undoubtedly be involved. Answer choice c requires an assumption (one that is actually a flaw in LR arguments) that because it has occurred in the past it will occur in the future. For SA questions there is no room for any assumptions, because we are looking to make the argument valid or in other words an argument with no assumptions.

I hope this helps!

[EricaL584]

I selected B but then I realized this is not a necessary assumption question.

When it asks that "a conclusion can be properly inferred if which assumption is made", I would say this is a sufficient assumption question because by relying on this assumption only, the conclusion should be able to be safely made.
B is definitely necessary assumption because by negating it, the conclusion won't be made. However, based on B itself, the conclusion is not able to be inferred too. The reason is: even if at least/some/most/or even all criminal organizations are will at some point become aware that the ongoing revolution, so what, they can simply turn away and not involve in these areas (maybe they think it takes too long before they can start collect profits from these fields compared with other quick ways to make profits).
D is correct because we don't need anything else in addition to D to refer that the criminal organizations will be involved. It says every organization (whatever type it is) who has the purpose of making profits will involve in anyway makes big bucks. Criminal organizations have this goal, so yes they will increasingly involve in.