Q18 - Some critics of space exploration

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello!
Could someone go through (A) through (C) for me?
I was only able to eliminate (D) and (E), and I went with (C)... Now I'm guessing that the word "sacrificed" may be too strong but I'm not quite sure why it is exactly wrong..

[chike_eze]

Hello!
Could someone go through (A) through (C) for me?
I was only able to eliminate (D) and (E), and I went with (C)... Now I'm guessing that the word "sacrificed" may be too strong but I'm not quite sure why it is exactly wrong..

Some critics are concerned about cost of program. But if program=cheaper then higher safety concerns. Now managers have proof of flaws (safety issues) due to efforts to accomplish things quicker and cheaper.

Question: What situation below is similar to the prompt?

B) "Safety risks ignored for scientific progress?" Nope, they didn't ignore one for the other. Eliminate.

C) "Safety sacrificed.. reach goal quickly." This looks good, but something doesn't seem quite right? Hmm.. Leave for now.

D) "Bureaucratic mistakes?" We were not given a reason for the decision in the prompt -- this goes too far. Eliminate.

E) "Exploration too dangerous?" Clearly wrong. Does not give us two competing issues.

Two left, A and C. We take another look.

Aha! something is wrong with C. It is an opinion about why safety gets the short end of the stick. However, in the prompt, we are only told what happens if we attempt to solve one problem which makes another problem worse. i.e., lower cost leading to higher safety concerns.

A) Solving one problem (high cost) can lead to more of another problem (safety issues)

[LSAT-Chang]

Thanks for the great explanation Chike!!
So basically, safety is not "OFTEN SACRIFICED".. it seems like a very strong wording -- beyond what we need.

[bigtree65]

I was on the fence between A and E here because I didn't really understand the stimulus. Here's where I was confused: if the answer is A then the everything makes sense to me except the second sentence because I don't understand how the part about an explosion fits in. If E is the answer (and yes I realize E is a little extreme) then I don't understand why sentence one and three are separated by sentence two. I feel like E would make perfect sense if the order of the sentences was 1-3-2 and A would make sense if 2 was just taken out.

Can somebody enlighten me a bit on what's wrong with my thought process please? I would greatly appreciate it.

[jimmy902o]

still not seeing how C is wrong. chike_eze im not sure exactly what you mean by it gets the short end of the stick.

looking over the problem a second time i saw that C essentially means decreased safety--> reach goal quickly

and in the stim it says reach goal quickly--> safety

is C wrong because its a mistaken reversal?

[nflamel69]

there are two reasons why C is wrong.

1st, the conclusion is the pressure the make programs cheaper undermine the safety, and the rest of support of that. so your principle needs to deal with that cheaper is somehow detrimental to the safety in one way or another.

2nd, often sacrificed is wrong in the modifier often, one example does not support often, in addition, it doesn't deal with the cheaper part

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Great discussion here. Someone asked the problem with C, however, and I don't think it's been adequately addressed. Really quickly, I'll go through the answer choices.

A) As we all know, this is correct. The reason has been adequately described on here already. Attempting to solve the problem of cost exacerbates the issue of safety.

B) The risks aren't being ignored here; they are being deprioritized.

C) There's NOTHING in the stimulus about getting something done quickly. The issue with space travel is not how long it takes, it's how much it costs.

D) There are no bureaucratic mistakes mentioned in the stimulus, only manufacturing mistakes.

E) This goes way too far; also it isn't a principle.

Hope that helps!

-t

[griffin.811]

The issue with C is tough! Here's my go at it.

C claims "Safety is OFTEN sacrificed.." In the passage however we are only told that ONE manager found A series of flaws.

I would think that if this were an "often" occurrence, more than one manager would have spotted the issue (if not they need to hire better managers).

Bottom line, we aren't given enough to validate this claim of "often". While the passage can be read in a sense that precludes "often", it can often be read the opposite way.

What do you all think?

[rickytucker]

This is MBT-principle: take information in the stimulus as fact and form a general rule based off that.

"Often" isn't the issue because principles (general rules) are allowed to generalize, that's the point: a principle, rule, law etc. is meant to be intentionally vague and broad so that specific examples can fall under the purview of that rule.

As tommywallach posted earlier, the issue with (C) is "as quickly as possible" which is not supported by the stimulus.

I think a good lesson with this question type is to be cautious with answer choices that have too much specificity since we are being asked to generalize.

[yihannah90]

This is MBT-principle: take information in the stimulus as fact and form a general rule based off that.

I've been having some difficulty recognizing and classifying the principle question stems.

Can someone please explain how we know that this specific question stem, "the passage conforms most closely to which one of the following propositions," is MBT-principle?

I usually take "conforms most closley to which" as a strengthen-principle, but that approach clearly didn't help here!

[aradunakhor]

Hi tommywallach, I'm a bit confused, isn't there some mention of getting something done quickly in the stimulus, in the line 'are a direct consequence of the pressure to produce results as quickly and cheaply as possible'? The stimulus mentions the combination of 'quickly and cheaply' whereas C only references quickly, but that was the only thing I could think of that made me hesitate about C.

Thanks!

Hey Guys,

Great discussion here. Someone asked the problem with C, however, and I don't think it's been adequately addressed. Really quickly, I'll go through the answer choices.

A) As we all know, this is correct. The reason has been adequately described on here already. Attempting to solve the problem of cost exacerbates the issue of safety.

B) The risks aren't being ignored here; they are being deprioritized.

C) There's NOTHING in the stimulus about getting something done quickly. The issue with space travel is not how long it takes, it's how much it costs.

D) There are no bureaucratic mistakes mentioned in the stimulus, only manufacturing mistakes.

E) This goes way too far; also it isn't a principle.

Hope that helps!

-t

[daniel]

Hi tommywallach, I'm a bit confused, isn't there some mention of getting something done quickly in the stimulus, in the line 'are a direct consequence of the pressure to produce results as quickly and cheaply as possible'? The stimulus mentions the combination of 'quickly and cheaply' whereas C only references quickly, but that was the only thing I could think of that made me hesitate about C.

Thanks!

Hey Guys,

Great discussion here. Someone asked the problem with C, however, and I don't think it's been adequately addressed. Really quickly, I'll go through the answer choices.

A) As we all know, this is correct. The reason has been adequately described on here already. Attempting to solve the problem of cost exacerbates the issue of safety.

B) The risks aren't being ignored here; they are being deprioritized.

C) There's NOTHING in the stimulus about getting something done quickly. The issue with space travel is not how long it takes, it's how much it costs.

D) There are no bureaucratic mistakes mentioned in the stimulus, only manufacturing mistakes.

E) This goes way too far; also it isn't a principle.

Hope that helps!

-t

FWIW, I had a similar thought as aradunakhor when I was doing this one. It's not that moving quickly necessarily leads to problems with safety, but the combination of fast and cheap. This reminded me of the project management triangle (or "iron triangle"). For example, safety concerns could be addressed on a quicker timeline, but it will cost a great deal more to do it that way.

Answer choice (C), in my view, is a half-scope answer, because it's not that doing the project quickly leads to safety problems, but the combination of quickly and cheaply, and this is what is stated in the last sentence of the stimulus.

In any case, when I was down to (A) and (C), this was enough for me to select (A) and move on, since (A) is a much better match to what is actually stated in the stimulus.

I am curious to know whether anybody thinks that (C) would still be wrong if it had said,

"Safety is often sacrificed in order to reach a goal as quickly and cheaply as possible."

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Yes, I'd agree that if (C) said both "quickly" and "cheaply," it would be a good answer.

As for how we know what kind of principle question it is, you can generally tell by the fact that there isn't a conclusion. For it to be strengthen-principle, the stimulus itself would need to have a conclusion inside it. This one doesn't.

Good discussion all!

-t

[timsportschuetz]

Surprised nobody has mentioned the MOST OBVIOUS flaw with answer [C]. Notice how the stimulus states that the budgetary pressures result in the undermining of safety. Then, the argument presents a specific example illustrating the aforementioned observation: Pressures to produce results as quickly and cheaply as possible resulted in a series of manufacturing flaws.

Thus, the stimulus is very clear with the direction of the causal statements! The observation and example both follow this general outline:

Cause: Pressures ----> Effect: Safety risks

Notice how answer choice [C] completely reverses the above relationship! You cannot do this.

[aznriceboi17]

I'm don't see how C reverses the relationship. The reversal would be the claim that "safety risks caused pressure on the manufacturers." Choice C's statement is that often times in order to reach a goal as quickly as possible safety is sacrificed, which is more or less "pressure (to reach goal as quickly as possible) ==> safety risk incurred".

Surprised nobody has mentioned the MOST OBVIOUS flaw with answer [C]. Notice how the stimulus states that the budgetary pressures result in the undermining of safety. Then, the argument presents a specific example illustrating the aforementioned observation: Pressures to produce results as quickly and cheaply as possible resulted in a series of manufacturing flaws.

Thus, the stimulus is very clear with the direction of the causal statements! The observation and example both follow this general outline:

Cause: Pressures ----> Effect: Safety risks

Notice how answer choice [C] completely reverses the above relationship! You cannot do this.

[tommywallach]

Hey Ricebowl,

I agree! : )

-t