Q14 - We learn to use most

[lovelessim]

I had this question down to B and C, and ultimately chose "B", incorrectly. I see that "C" is a good answer, but I am havign a hard time seeing why "B" is not good.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Thanks for the question!

We're given an argument in the stimulus that can be summed up with on piece of evidence and one conclusion.

Evidence
Most machines are specifically designed for use by nonexperts.

Conclusion
Attaining technological expertise would prepare students no better for tomorrow's job market.

We're asked to find the gap in the reasoning

Assumption
Tomorrow's job market does not have jobs that require attaining technological expertise. This is best expressed in answer choice (C).

(A) is irrelevant. We don't have information to make that comparison.
(B) is not a required assumption. We don't know whether that enhanced facility in operating machines would prepare students better for tomorrow's job market.
(D) mixes up terms in the stimulus just to sound familiar, but the argument never implies that one cannot find an education that has both qualities.
(E) is not a required assumption. It must be the case that technological expertise is not always more important than verbal and quantitative skills, but "never" is too strong!


I hope this helps to clear things up on this one. Let me know if you still need some more help with it!

[peg_city]

Thanks for the question!

We're given an argument in the stimulus that can be summed up with on piece of evidence and one conclusion.

Evidence
Most machines are specifically designed for use by nonexperts.

Conclusion
Attaining technological expertise would prepare students no better for tomorrow's job market.

We're asked to find the gap in the reasoning

Assumption
Tomorrow's job market does not have jobs that require attaining technological expertise. This is best expressed in answer choice (C).

(A) is irrelevant. We don't have information to make that comparison.
(B) is not a required assumption. We don't know whether that enhanced facility in operating machines would prepare students better for tomorrow's job market.
(D) mixes up terms in the stimulus just to sound familiar, but the argument never implies that one cannot find an education that has both qualities.
(E) is not a required assumption. It must be the case that technological expertise is not always more important than verbal and quantitative skills, but "never" is too strong!


I hope this helps to clear things up on this one. Let me know if you still need some more help with it!

I'm having a DIFFICULT time with assumption question.

Why wouldn't B or E be right in this situation. They both contribute to the conclusion?
Why does the strength of the word 'never' matter for both B and E? Would the negation technique help in this situation? IE, 'not never' doesn't necessarily weaken the argument.

Note: I bought the Manhattan LSAT book, which would probably help me, however I haven't got it in the mail yet.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I've assumed too much! Haha! You're right, I really should explain why "never" is too strong.

Let's start with the fact that I won't be able to explain all of the subtleties and nuances involved with Assumption questions in this response. But that said there are some important differences between the two kinds of Assumption questions.

1. Sufficient Assumptions - ask you to find an answer choice that allows the conclusion to be properly drawn. That means the correct answer will prove 100% that the conclusion is true.

2. Necessary Assumptions - ask you to find an assumption the argument depends on. That means the correct answer will not necessarily be enough to prove the conclusion true, but will be something that must be true in order for the conclusion to have even a chance of being true.

You CAN use the Negation Test on this question and as you continue to work on the LSAT you'll learn some common ways to negate claims, quantifiers, and conditionals.

For example the negation of "everywhere" is "not everywhere." And the negation of "never" is "sometimes."

So for this question that asks for a Necessary Assumption, the correct answer is something that has to be true in order for the conclusion to even have a chance of being true.

(B) is not necessary to the argument. Even if facility in operating machines designed for use by nonexperts is generally enhanced by expert knowledge of the machine's inner workings, the conclusion about whether such training is beneficial in finding a job in tomorrow's job market could still be true. We don't know what kind of jobs tomorrow's job market will have!

(E) has a similar problem as answer choice (B). This doesn't address what sort of jobs tomorrow's job market will have. Even if we concede that tomorrow's jobs will be those that require at least some technological expertise. This answer choice is still too strong. It might be necessary at that point that technological expertise is [not always] more important, but not that it's "never" more important.

Does that answer your question?

[WaltGrace1983]

I almost totally get (C) but what I am not liking here is the word "most" as in "most jobs."

Most machines are designed for use by non experts
→
Attaining technological expertise wouldn't prepare students any better for tomorrow's job market than a more traditional education

(A) We are not comparing the people obtaining an education now and the people obtaining an education 20 years ago. Eliminate.

(D) This does not need to be assumed. The conclusion is just saying that the technological expertise wouldn't do much to prepare him or her for a job. It doesn't matter if this expertise could be acquired with or without another form of education (one that stresses verbal and quantitative skills).

(E) We aren't concerned with learning how to use a machine and the word "never" is a little off-putting. Couldn't it be the case that there is even one instance in technological skills are more important?

Now I know that I could probably eliminate (B) because it has no relevance to the job market. In addition, we have no idea about what kind of machines the future job market will use. Maybe the market will use non expert machines or expert machines, who knows. I understand those reasons for eliminating (B). However, I just don't see why we need to assume that "most" jobs will not demand the ability to operate these machines. Why wouldn't it be "at least some?" Most just seems like it is saying that these machines will dominate the job market when, according to question, don't we only need to say that there are at least some jobs in which this technological knowledge is not needed?

Can someone help me with this?

[maryadkins]

I just don't see why we need to assume that "most" jobs will not demand the ability to operate these machines. Why wouldn't it be "at least some?" Most just seems like it is saying that these machines will dominate the job market when, according to question, don't we only need to say that there are at least some jobs in which this technological knowledge is not needed?

Can someone help me with this?

It's all about the wording in the conclusion: "technological expertise will prepare students NO BETTER THAN" traditional education. We can translate that to the assumption that most jobs are not going to require specialized technological knowledge, otherwise, technological training WOULD be better!

Think about it this way. If most jobs DID demand technological expertise, that means over 50% of jobs required special tech skills. So how would traditional education be equally good? 50% of the jobs would be off the table for those without the specialized knowledge.

[513852276]

Just be nerdy, the contrary to answer choice C is not "most jobs DID demand technological expertise", but "not most jobs not demand technological expertise". The latter contains one more instance as "exactly 50% of jobs demand tech exp, and 50% of jobs demand not." When exactly 50% of jobs demand tech exp, the conclusion in stimulus still hold as attaining tech. expertise is NO BETTER THAN (in this case, equally good as) stressing verbal and quantitative skills. Hence, answer choice C may not be a necessary assumption, as a contradiction fail to undermine the conclusion.

I just don't see why we need to assume that "most" jobs will not demand the ability to operate these machines. Why wouldn't it be "at least some?" Most just seems like it is saying that these machines will dominate the job market when, according to question, don't we only need to say that there are at least some jobs in which this technological knowledge is not needed?

Can someone help me with this?

It's all about the wording in the conclusion: "technological expertise will prepare students NO BETTER THAN" traditional education. We can translate that to the assumption that most jobs are not going to require specialized technological knowledge, otherwise, technological training WOULD be better!

Think about it this way. If most jobs DID demand technological expertise, that means over 50% of jobs required special tech skills. So how would traditional education be equally good? 50% of the jobs would be off the table for those without the specialized knowledge.

[tommywallach]

I can't tell if you're asking a question here or not. So my apologies, but if you did have a question, could you try wording it again? Really try to make every sentence full and grammatically correct (i.e. "Hence, answer choice C may not be a necessary assumption, as a contradiction fail to undermine the conclusion." -- this is not a complete sentence). Also, use a question mark rather than the question mark smiley face, just because I can't quite tell where the question is, or if you're just making a smiley there. Thanks!

-t