Q16 - The ability to access information

[irini101]

Is A wrong because of "complete"?

The stimulus does not contain any feature such as conditional reasoning or causality etc.. Therefore I thought all a strengthener would do is to strengthen the link between premise and conclusion and the answer is not particularly apt for prediction.

I chose A because I thougth it would somehow help strengthen the conclusion that by computer information for visually impaired people would be more accessible and I failed to notice "widely available" in B which is most convincing.

Any thought would be appreciated!

[charmayne.palomba]

PT46, S2, Q16 (Strengthen)

(B) is correct.

As is the case with all assumption family questions, we should begin by identifying the conclusion. In this case, it’s conveniently located at the end of the stimulus, and triggered by "thus," a common conclusion indicator: visually impaired people can access information from computers more easily than from traditional sources. What evidence does the author provide in support of this conclusion? First, we’re told that a limited amount of printed information is available in those more traditional sources (e.g., large type and audiotapes.) That’s important information, because our conclusion is comparative"”it makes a claim about the relative ease of accessing information using a computer vs. traditional sources. Next, we’re told that given the right hardware and software, visually impaired people can access a large quantity of information and have that information translated into a form that they are able to use. Here’s our core:

v. impaired people with access to right equipment can access large quant. of info via computer

+

limited info avail. in
print

-->

v. impaired people can access info more easily using a computer

This seems like a pretty reasonable argument, and there isn’t a glaring flaw that jumps off the page at us. But if we read carefully"”like a debater"”we come across a red flag in the stimulus: "with the right hardware and software." This phrase qualifies the people who would have access to this wealth of information: they need to have the right equipment. But the conclusion glazes over that qualification, and makes a much more general"”and certain"”claim that visually impaired people can access information more easily using computers. What if very few visually impaired people are able to get the hardware and software they need? What if it isn’t very easy to use? Let’s keep these questions in mind as we approach the answer choices.

(A) is tempting, but "computer speech synthesizer" (and "audiotape," for that matter) is a pretty narrow term. The stimulus tells us that people can access a wealth of information given the right hardware and software. To say the least, it’s doubtful that a computer speech synthesizer on its own fulfills this criterion. Furthermore, does it necessarily follow that because the synthesizer is cheap, it will be accessible? What if they are cheap, but very few are available?

(C) is out of scope. The author is arguing that visually impaired people can access more information using computers. Whether they want to is another question altogether.

(D) may be true, but is the conclusion making a definitive claim about the amount of information available via computer vs. traditional sources? No"”it’s making a claim about the ease of access to that information. It may be the case that people who have access via a computer could get the same information using traditional sources, but it may be more difficult to do so. This answer choice doesn’t refer to ease of access at all, and therefore isn’t relevant to the core. Out of scope!

(E) does not address the relative accessibility of computer and traditional sources. If anything, this would tend to weaken the conclusion. The problem with traditional sources is that there is a limited amount available in accessible formats; if the rate of conversion increased, there would be more information available in traditional sources, which might make it easier to access information from traditional sources, thus lessening the gap between ease of access via computer and traditional sources.

That leaves (B), which is the correct answer. This addresses exactly the gap we saw when we read the stimulus, and makes the argument much more watertight. If computers allow visually impaired users to access more information and the equipment they need to make that potential a reality are easy to get and use, the author’s claim is substantiated: visually impaired people will indeed be able to access information more easily using a computer.

[joseph.m.kirby]

Isn't the first sentence the argument's main conclusion?

Intermediate Conclusion: Visually impaired people can now access information from computers more easily than they can from most traditional sources.

Main Conclusion: The ability to access information via computer is a tremendous resource for visually impaired people.

[timmydoeslsat]

Isn't the first sentence the argument's main conclusion?

Intermediate Conclusion: Visually impaired people can now access information from computers more easily than they can from most traditional sources.

Main Conclusion: The ability to access information via computer is a tremendous resource for visually impaired people.

No, this argument is trying to convince us that it is easier to access information from computers than it is from traditional sources.

This argument is basically starting off with how great computers can be in regards to accessing the information. It then goes into detail how it can be done. But the problem is that we do not know how easily people can get their hands on these computers to even access the information. What if you have to do so much work to even find the computer and that there are so few of them even around? We need to show that these computers talked about fit into this idea of "easiness."

[joseph.m.kirby]

Thanks for the reply Timmy; however, even with your explanation, I still see the last statement as supporting the statement at the top.

The argument is attempting to convince us that:

[v]isually impaired people can now access information from computers more easily than they can from most traditional sources. THEREFORE, the ability to access information via computer is a tremendous resource for visually impaired people.

The argument is structured to show that computers NOW are better than traditional sources; in the past, perhaps, traditional sources were better (when computers first came out). In any case, the argument sets out to establish that computers are NOW better than traditional sources; which, if true, would support the main conclusion: [t]he ability to access information via computer is a tremendous resource for visually impaired people (perhaps in the past, computers weren't).

On another note, even though "thus," outside of the LSAT, is a common conclusion indicator, within the LSAT, in most cases, it seems to point to the intermediate conclusion (with the main conclusion being at the top). This situation happens more frequently in the "main conclusion" questions.

[timmydoeslsat]

I respectfully disagree. Although I do agree with your point about thus, which is a very good point when thinking about a typical main conclusion question, as the testwriters will not generally make it that easy.

The far more controversial claim in this argument is the ease aspect of attaining information. There is not much of a gap between what we know and being able to say that computers are a tremendous resource for visually impaired people.

The fact that the computer CAN actually do those things cited versus the limited traditional resources basically fully supports the idea of computers being a tremendous idea. Not much to quibble about there. But whether or not visually impaired people have an easier time is up for debate. Can they afford it? Is it for the tech savvy folks at heart? This is what needs support. This is the over-the-top opinion for the author.

[asafezrati]

[b]PT46, S2, Q16 (Strengthen)

(A) is tempting, but "computer speech synthesizer" (and "audiotape," for that matter) is a pretty narrow term. The stimulus tells us that people can access a wealth of information given the right hardware and software. To say the least, it’s doubtful that a computer speech synthesizer on its own fulfills this criterion. Furthermore, does it necessarily follow that because the synthesizer is cheap, it will be accessible? What if they are cheap, but very few are available?

I can "feel" that this one is weak, and also clearly see that answer choice B is much better, but I just can't say that on its own answer choice A doesn't strengthen the argument.

Lower expenses hint for a greater availability, even if there might be some other factor that will hint a lessen availability.

So why doesn't it strengthen?
Maybe we can't say that 'computerized speech synths' = information from a computer?
Maybe it is strengthener, only a mild one?

Can someone clear this issue?

Thanks.