Q20 - Interviewer: A certain company released

[jrdn_pearl]

i am not sure why E is the answer. this was an unusual question.

[noah]

This is a strange-looking question! It boils down to the following:

An interviewer asks how microprocessors that lead to faulty processes could be part of a new computer model.

An industry spokesperson explains that there's a huge number of microprocessors, and so they cannot all be manually checked.

The interviewer (who is clearly not happy) asks what's to stop this from occurring with new microprocessors. Though it's not stated, we can assume she means "Won't we also be unable to manually check all of these new ones?"

The spokesperson explains that the new chips are now computer-designed, so there's no chance of these design flaws.

If you were the interviewer, what would your reply be? Perhaps you would say "Well, how do you know that the computer-designed chips will not be flawed as well?" Or, you might say "But the problem you mentioned -- of not being able to check each microprocessor -- won't that remain a problem, regardless of how they're designed?" Both responses hinge on the question of whether it's possible to create a flawless computer in light of the problem the interviewer noted.

(E) hinges on the first idea. It states that the spokesperson assumes that the computers designing the microprocessors could be error free. We already know that computers can be flawed, so why assume the computers doing the microprocessor designing will be any different?

(A) is out of scope as it discusses models produced by other companies.
(B) is out of scope -- the argument only discusses design flaws
(C) is tempting as there is indeed a chance that the new computers will have a different flaw -- perhaps the power supply won't work -- but the discussion is solely focused on issues with microprocessors.
(D) is unsupported -- there's no discussion of a single instance.

[perng.yan]

i see how the spokesperson shifts from one problem to giving a solution that doesn't really address the prior problem.. but...

the interveiwer only responds with "what guarentee do we have that new microprocessors will not be similarly flawed?"

i see how "similiar" can mean the "same" , which puts (B) out of scope.. but simliar just means something like the same... therefore...

i took the the spokesperson's answer to be "SINCE the microprocessors are NOW entirely computer-designed, there is no chance of flaws" and therefore "no need to manually check all fo them"

however, there could be other flaws beside the design, since the spokesperson says that the design is now fullproof.. but there could be other flaws in the microprossesor that would be "similar" because they can't all be manually checked.

thanks.

[noah]

But the spokesperson's conclusion is specifically about avoiding this specific microprocessor flaw, not flaws in general - you seem to have strayed from the wording. Also, you don't really need to worry about the Interviewer.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hi Noah,
so if we see an answer choice like (B) which is not related to the conclusion, we can just eliminate it? I originally picked (B) because I was thinking that there may be other flaws aside from the design flaws, but like you mentioned, the spokesperson is ONLY talking about design flaws, so it wouldn't be a flaw that he's not talking about some other stuff, since he's not making a general statement but just about there being NO more design flaws..

but you know how with suff/necc flaws, we are likely to see correct answer choices such as "failing to consider an alternative possibility", so if this was something like a suff/necc problem, then we could perhaps bring in the other flaws besides the design flaw and say something like "fails to consider that there may be other flaws besides design flaws" right? I can't recall exactly which problems there were in which there was clearly outside information involved in the correct answer choices, in which the author's conclusion didn't hold since he or she just based it off of one possibility, whereas there could be many others. Does this make sense?

[noah]

First, to clarify, the types that have the most out-of-scope-feeling answers are necc. assumptions, strengthens and weakeners.

For this question, we need to find a flaw in the reasoning, so it should be embedded in the argument. Another version of (B), a bit exaggerated, might be "overlooks the possibility that microprocessors can melt in a fire."

Yes, but is that a flaw in the reasoning? Even if so, (E) clearly addresses a major flaw that's completely situated within the argument.

It might be if the conclusion were something like "Microprocessors don't have viruses, therefore microprocessors now are completely reliable."

Just as important to keep in mind here is that we want the best answer.

[shirando21]

It seems to me the spokesperson is not answering the question. Design flaw is not some kind of the flaw of products happened in the process of manufacturing. I don't think it is something that can be solved by manually checking or designed by computer.

isn't design flaw a flaw that at the time of the invention/production of the product, the technology can not detect or can not solve ?

[noah]

It seems to me the spokesperson is not answering the question. Design flaw is not some kind of the flaw of products happened in the process of manufacturing. I don't think it is something that can be solved by manually checking or designed by computer.

isn't design flaw a flaw that at the time of the invention/production of the product, the technology can not detect or can not solve ?

Interesting point.

However, the interviewer says that the design is flawed and goes on to speak about manually checking the circuits before that model is released--which can be taken to be speaking about the model in general, not individual computers in the model line.

More importantly, our job is to find a flaw in the spokesperson's argument, not how she/he doesn't address the interviewer's concerns. It's back to the basics: what's the conclusion? what's the premise? What gap exists?

Also, the LSAT probably wouldn't expect us to parse the vocabulary of the industry--it cares about testing our grasp of logic.

[sweetygurl]

So in essence, the spokesperson is making a "lack of general or relevant evidence" flaw.

Am i correct?

[noah]

So in essence, the spokesperson is making a "lack of general or relevant evidence" flaw.

Am i correct?

Sounds like you're running with some other program's breakdown of flaws. I tend to not find those useful and find it more useful to figure out how all flaws are really about assumptions.

But, to answer your question, one could say there's a lack of evidence to support the Industry spokesperson's statement, but actually it's more than a lack of it, there's actually counter-evidence!

[olumide_francis]

Hi Noah,

My first time using this study platform. Nice to see you all guys.
I chose C at first and have understood the reason why it is wrong.
I agree with your point that the spokesman did assume a computer could be error free (thanks to the computer-designed technology). In this case, I think we could say that the spokesperson assume all computers could be error free theoretically (if he assume every computer). I just do not understand how your explanation "In essence, how do we know the computer-designed microprocessors will be flawless?" would be related to the answer choice E. What does "despite evidence to the contrary" mean and imply? And I think the correct answer should be "take for granted that all computers are not liable to error", instead of "some computers are not liable to error".
Thank you so much!

[noah]

Hi Noah,

My first time using this study platform. Nice to see you all guys.
I chose C at first and have understood the reason why it is wrong.
I agree with your point that the spokesman did assume a computer could be error free (thanks to the computer-designed technology). In this case, I think we could say that the spokesperson assume all computers could be error free theoretically (if he assume every computer). I just do not understand how your explanation "In essence, how do we know the computer-designed microprocessors will be flawless?" would be related to the answer choice E. What does "despite evidence to the contrary" mean and imply? And I think the correct answer should be "take for granted that all computers are not liable to error", instead of "some computers are not liable to error".
Thank you so much!

Welcome aboard.

First off, "despite evidence to the contrary" means that you're saying something that goes against some evidence. Here's an example of saying something despite evidence to the contrary:

The woman that stole my wallet is trustworthy.

As for wishing the answer were about all computers, that is not what the spokesperson is assuming. Does she need them all to be perfect? No, she just needs the ones that are designing the new microprocessors to be.

Make sense?

[olumide_francis]

Much better.
So here, the evidence to the contrary implies that the issue that huge number of circuits cannot be all checked before they are released still does not figure out, which mean potential liability still exists. But the spokesperson assumed the new microprocessors designed by computer are perfect?

[noah]

Much better.
So here, the evidence to the contrary implies that the issue that huge number of circuits cannot be all checked before they are released still does not figure out, which mean potential liability still exists. But the spokesperson assumed the new microprocessors designed by computer are perfect?

correct

[amil91]

Could someone further explain why B is out of scope? To me, they could be similarly flawed if the flaw resulted in the same thing - the processor processing information incorrectly.

[noah]

Could someone further explain why B is out of scope? To me, they could be similarly flawed if the flaw resulted in the same thing - the processor processing information incorrectly.

But then wouldn't that flaw be a design flaw? In other words, the way it's designed makes it process information incorrectly.

More in line with what (B) says--a flaw in something other than how it's designed--what if it turns out that microprocessors are flawed in the sense that they are too expensive and so companies can't recoup their costs--does that impact the spokesperson's argument? No.

I think you're over-thinking this one (a sign that you're deep into LSAT land!). The spokesperson's argument is about only design flaws, and (B) is about something other than a design flaw.

[amil91]

Could someone further explain why B is out of scope? To me, they could be similarly flawed if the flaw resulted in the same thing - the processor processing information incorrectly.

But then wouldn't that flaw be a design flaw? In other words, the way it's designed makes it process information incorrectly.

More in line with what (B) says--a flaw in something other than how it's designed--what if it turns out that microprocessors are flawed in the sense that they are too expensive and so companies can't recoup their costs--does that impact the spokesperson's argument? No.

I think you're over-thinking this one (a sign that you're deep into LSAT land!). The spokesperson's argument is about only design flaws, and (B) is about something other than a design flaw.

I was thinking more along the lines of an assembly flaw, for example, the design is prefect, but during assembly some chips have a bad connection some where. Does that make sense?

[noah]

I was thinking more along the lines of an assembly flaw, for example, the design is prefect, but during assembly some chips have a bad connection some where. Does that make sense?

But, the spokesperson wouldn't care about those -- they're not design flaws.

Here's an extreme version of your thinking that might get at what I'm saying: What if the earth falls into the sun and the chip melts--wouldn't that screw up the argument? Clearly it wouldn't, but why not? It's because the spokesperson could still argue that there is "no chance of further...design flaws.." because the design is now done by computer. Yes, there is a chance of some other bad stuff happening, but gosh dangit, I'm right about that design!

[amil91]

I was thinking more along the lines of an assembly flaw, for example, the design is prefect, but during assembly some chips have a bad connection some where. Does that make sense?

But, the spokesperson wouldn't care about those -- they're not design flaws.

Here's an extreme version of your thinking that might get at what I'm saying: What if the earth falls into the sun and the chip melts--wouldn't that screw up the argument? Clearly it wouldn't, but why not? It's because the spokesperson could still argue that there is "no chance of further...design flaws.." because the design is now done by computer. Yes, there is a chance of some other bad stuff happening, but gosh dangit, I'm right about that design!

Ah! Thank you so much, it makes perfect sense now, I think I was focusing too much on the interviewer.

[yiiz427]

I was so confused with B earlier. But I suddenly realized that I maybe saw things way more complicated than they really were. And here is my approach to this:

(please correct me if it doesn’t make sense)

E is correct for when I took it apart,
1. “despite evidence to the contrary “ refers to the “mannually checked” situation in the spokesperson’s first answer.
2. “Takes for granted that some computers are not liable to error” refers to his second answer trying to explain why the micro things will not be similarly flawed.

And it seemed to me that the correct option was just glued together so that they made senses separately.

While I tried really hard to see the argument as a whole, I could only find B as a “meh” option because when it perceived altogether, the spokesperson’s biggest problem was that he didn’t know how to address a problem properly.