Q16 - Allowing more steel imports

[uhdang]

This is a Parallel Reasoning Question.

@ First identify the possible elements that could be repeated in answer choices.

1) Contrapositive
Allowing more steel imports ==> Depress domestic steel price ==> harm domestic steel manufacturers. (A => B => C)
Not harm steel industry ==> Not lift restriction on imports (~C => ~A)

2) Time shift from general statement, or present tense, to future tense.

3) While first sentence doesn't have a specific subject, the second statement have a specific subject (government)

===== Answer Analysis =====

A) Mistaken Reverse

Building Construction Increases ==> Confident in economy is well (A => B)
Confident in economy well ==> can expect building construction increase (B => A)


B) ??

A + B, so no further need?
Seems like this is limiting necessary elements of provision for workers. But don't really see the structure.



C) This would be applying general phenomenon (deregulation leading to bankrupt) to a specific case (other transportation industries) with comparison to according elements (weaker economic condition). So, structure-wise, this would be just A => B leading to A => B.
Besides, there is a probability language ("probably") which stimulus doesn’t have.



D) This would be a conditional statement embedded in a causal relationship.

( Next years' tax laws will ==> companies to pay a new tax ) == (therefore) ==> CEO of Silicon will probably not accept stock as a bonus



E) Contrapositive + Time shift + Subject change all there. (Correct)

Installation of Bright flood light on campus ==> astronomy department's telescope useless (A => B)
Astronomy department will not support anything that makes telescope useless ==> NOT support installing bright flood lights. (~B => ~A)

[Ibrahim.diallo]

what threw me off about E is that I felt that one of the premises did not match exactly. the question stem says:
"allowing more steel imports would depress domestic prices AND harm domestic steel production" and this is supposed to match up with "the installation of bright floodlights would render the astronomer's department telescope useless". I was expecting two triggers - "depress AND harm" different from just "useless" no? it is still better than the rest of the answer choices, so makes sense to be the right answer.

Just a general question about patterns of reasoning - should we expect a perfect match? or is something like this close enough that it works?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

what threw me off about E is that I felt that one of the premises did not match exactly. the question stem says:
"allowing more steel imports would depress domestic prices AND harm domestic steel production" and this is supposed to match up with "the installation of bright floodlights would render the astronomer's department telescope useless". I was expecting two triggers - "depress AND harm" different from just "useless" no? it is still better than the rest of the answer choices, so makes sense to be the right answer.

Just a general question about patterns of reasoning - should we expect a perfect match? or is something like this close enough that it works?

Good question. You should not expect that the correct answer will always be a perfect match. Just like many Inference questions that ask for what is "most supported" this Matching question asks for the answer choice that is "most similar" in its reasoning structure. So remember to give the answer choices some wiggle room, but not so much that you end up with two answers! It's a careful balancing act, and you'll get the feel for it as you continue prepping for the LSAT.

In this case, the stimulus calls for an action having certain consequences. Some entity not undertaking any action that would lead to those consequences. And then finally a conclusion that says that the entity would not engage in that activity.

Answer choice (E) gets as closer to the mark than any of the other answer choices.

Incorrect Answers
(A) contains flawed reasoning in that it involves reversed logic.
(B) contains flawed reasoning in that it overlooks any number of reasons why the government may want to institute health regulations for people who work at computer terminals. Maybe they want to further guarantee safer work environments?
(C) relies on comparison reasoning rather than causal reasoning. We're looking to find someone unwilling to engage in an action because that action would likely have certain consequences that the person wants to avoid. This argument contains no one making a choice to avoid certain consequences.
(D) contains someone avoiding an action because of the consequences of that action, but never provides evidence that the someone wants to avoid those consequences.