Q4 - Advances in photocopying technology

[soyeonjeon]

I debated between A and C and ended up choosing C.
Why would C be incorrect?
Is it because it gives support but not as strong a support as A?

Thanks for your help.

[sumukh09]

C would actually weaken the argument because it's saying it would be easier to adopt a technique other than the special ink. Saying it takes less steps implies it's easier which would weaken the support for using the special ink.

A on the other hand strengthens the recommendation to use special ink by saying microprinting would be costly to society which isn't a good thing; thus there's more support for using special ink than microprinting.

[jeannekim90]

Can someone please explain why E can't be the correct answer?

If the criminals do not have easy access to the printer, wouldn't that decrease the number of counterfeits?
I thought that this would be another reason why adopting the microprinting method is better than the standard technique.

Thank you.

[marshal_of_grey]

Can someone please explain why E can't be the correct answer?

If the criminals do not have easy access to the printer, wouldn't that decrease the number of counterfeits?
I thought that this would be another reason why adopting the microprinting method is better than the standard technique.

Thank you.

I think you've misunderstood the stimulus: microprinting is the standard technique. The conclusion of the argument is that they should switch from microprinting to using the special ink.

[Mab6q]

Can someone explain why B wouldnt work? Does the last part of the AC mess it up.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post! Let’s do a top-to-bottom analysis of this question.

To begin with, this is a strengthen question (what would "provide the most SUPPORT..."). The first step, then, is to find the argument core.

Here it is:

Premise: Printing money with special ink would allow anyone to detect counterfeit currency, although it’s expensive.

Conclusion: We should start printing money with special inks, despite the extra expense.

The author here assumes that everyone being able to recognize counterfeit currency is really, really important. The author overlooks the possibility that cost, ease, or other considerations may be more important than a widespread ability to spot fraud.

Ok, our task here is to strengthen the argument, or to tighten up the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

(A) supports. It offers a reason why enabling everyone to detect counterfeit currency would help society. (A) is the correct answer.

(B) weakens. It suggests that "the method by which counterfeits are detected should be kept secret" for those methods to be effective. But wait, the special-ink method is obvious! The special inks shimmer and change color while counterfeit money would not... and everyone would recognize this. This method of detecting counterfeits could NOT be kept secret, so (B) does not help our conclusion.

(C) weakens the argument. It offers a reason why microprinting (an alternative to special inks) might be a good choice.

(D) is out of scope. Master engravers and days of yore are irrelevant.

(E) weakens the argument (subtly). It gives another reason why microprinting (again, the alternative to special inks) might not be such a bad choice. Most people would recognize these badly-made counterfeits. If this were true, why take on the extra expense of special printing?

Hope this helps.

[WaltGrace1983]

First let me just say that this stimulus is WAY. TOO. LONG. for question 4. Ok now that I've gotten that rant out of my system, I have a few questions about this argument.

(1) I notice this a significant number of times in LSAT land. The conclusion will say something like "Despite its perceived drawbacks, we should do X" or - as in this case - "It should be adopted...despite the expense." Are these little addendum the "key" to "unlocking" these questions? I feel that when I see these little tidbits of information, the correct answer will usually do something with them. For a strengthen question, it will show that the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefits or - as in this case - the upfront costs are less important than the long-term savings. For a weaken question, it will show that these pieces of information are actually much more significant than the author is stating. I could just be making something out of nothing but I feel like there is a pattern here.

(2) Couldn't we eliminate (B) just because the argument is comparing two different techniques and the answer choice gives us a general maxim that applies to both but doesn't distinguish between them?

(3) Let's say (C) was flipped around to say that, "The process of using special ink involves fewer steps than microprinting. This would still not be a good strengthener because we don't know the impact of having less steps has, correct? Granted, if it was the only choice left in a batch of answers that obviously sucked I guess it would provide a bit of a strengthener. However, the # of steps in the process is not very impactful, no?

[christine.defenbaugh]

As usual, you've got some great thoughts here WaltGrace1983!

1) I think this is a great structural detail to notice! There's no hard and fast rule, of course, but the fact that the author is already handing you the argument's main counterpoint is going to be relevant to strengthening or weakening that argument a lot of the time! If the argument concludes that despite Y, we should do something, because X - then the argument is almost always assuming, in doing so, that X is more important a consideration than Y!

2) While you are correct that (B) applies a principle to both scenarios, that application is not neutral. The principle may determine *effectiveness*. Whether something is effective or not would surely impact a determination of whether or not we should adopt it. So, we can't dismiss this principle quite so easily. We need to press a bit further and discover what the results of the application are. If this principle is correct, that would mean that the special shimmer ink would NOT be effective, since the method of detection is not at all secret! That absolutely weakens the conclusion that we should adopt it.

If this principle had gone the other way, perhaps proving the microprinting to be ineffective, or phrased differently to prove the special ink to be effective, it could have potentially been a strengthener. The application of the principle applies to both scenarios, but the results of that application give us a useful differentiation between the two.

3) Answer choice (C) is yet another situation where the line between 'incorrect weakener' and 'incorrect irrelevant' is fuzzy. As it is, one could easily make an argument either way, and flipped it has the same issue. I tend to agree with you though that the number of steps is not a clear cut indicator of something being 'better', and as such, it's hard to make a strong case that this would affect the argument about which method we should use.

But once again, the LSAT will never leave things that ambiguous between correct and incorrect answers. This hairsplitting only occurs in categorizing answers that are clearly wrong! :p Moral of the story is that if you're looking for a strengthener, and an answer seems to weaken, but it's meh - keep moving, because it's clearly not a strengthener either way!

Keep up the great, in depth analysis!



PS - I agree with you that the stimulus is awfully long! I'm guessing that you are working through these in the Cambridge packets, and so you might not realize it's part of a double-barreled question - one stimulus, two questions. That may be why they felt the need (or permission) to go so long!

[WaltGrace1983]

Totally get (B) now! Thanks a lot Christine!

[sabbagh_07]

so, this is how i interpreted answer choice C, and why i chose it as my answer choice. the process of microprinting involving fewer steps makes it easier to counterfeit than the proposed new process, which strengthens the argument is saying that the newer process will be more challenging to counterfeit. also, i had it down between C and A, i ruled A out because even though it is a big cost to society, so is the proposed new process, so why would that even make a difference? if anything i thought that it would weaken it, since they both are expensive, there should be no difference in that respect. please help!