Q4 - This region must find new

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This question asks us to ID the Conclusion of the argument. Typically, this requires us to find the conclusion and look for it paraphrased in the answer choices. The first sentence is the conclusion - and answer choice (A) does a great job of paraphrasing this sentence.

So, how do we know that the first sentence is the conclusion? There are many ways to ID the Conclusion. Sometimes we can use language cues such as "therefore, thus, hence, so, it follows that..., etc." Or sometimes language cues that introduce evidence (but imply conclusions) such as "since" or "because" can be used. I this case we get the language cues "after all" and "moreover" to indicate premises and so point to the first sentence as the conclusion.

Additionally, statements that represent recommendations, decisions, hypotheses, and predictions tend to be conclusions and the first sentence does represent a recommendation.

Incorrect Answers

(B) is true, but represents evidence.
(C) is true, but represents evidence.
(D) is tempting because of the language cue "so" which introduces conclusions. This is an intermediary conclusion that follows from the premise immediately before it. We can identify this as evidence though, because the next sentence begins with "moreover." So we know that that this answer choice was part of the evidence - there is apparently even more evidence than had yet been provided.
(E) is true, but represents evidence.


#officialexplanation

[jamiejames]

Can someone explain why it's not D? I have a hard time discerning between conclusions and sub conclusions sometimes, and this is one of those times.

[sumukh09]

I picked D) for this question as well.
For this Q if you apply the "therefore" test then it would make it more likely that the first sentence is the intermediary conclusion.

"This region must find new ways to help business grow, therefore there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas."

As opposed to,

"There is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas, therefore this region must find new ways to help business grow."

The first one seems more logical than the second one. A need to expand into new manufacturing areas is a logical consequence of the region needing to find new ways to help business grow. However, the other way around doesn't seem to make any sense, logically speaking.

[ilia.medovikov]

I picked D) for this question as well.
For this Q if you apply the "therefore" test then it would make it more likely that the first sentence is the intermediary conclusion.

"This region must find new ways to help business grow, therefore there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas."

As opposed to,

"There is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas, therefore this region must find new ways to help business grow."

The first one seems more logical than the second one. A need to expand into new manufacturing areas is a logical consequence of the region needing to find new ways to help business grow. However, the other way around doesn't seem to make any sense, logically speaking.

Hello sumukh09,

One of the ways in which you could identify the main conclusion of the argument is as follows:

1. Identify the contenders for the conclusion. In this question, the contenders are "This region must find new ways to help business grow." and "So, there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas".

2. Try to re-arrange the premises for each of the contenders to serve as the main conclusion and see which arrangement makes the most logical sense. For example, if "so there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas" used as the main conclusion, the argument roughly looks as follows:

Because shoe manufacturing has experienced severe setbacks due to overseas competition, this region must find new ways to help business grown. Moreover, because our outdated policy generally inhibits business growth, we can conclude that there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas.

If "This region must find new ways to help business grow" is used as the main conclusion, the argument roughly looks as follows:

Because shore manufacturing has experienced severe setbacks due to overseas competition, there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas (sub-conclusion). Moreover, because our outdated policy generally inhibits business growth, we can conclude that this region must find new ways to help business grow.

In the first arrangement, it seems that the premise "our outdated policy inhibits business growth" is not connected to the conclusion that "there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas". This lack of connectivity undermines the logical coherency of this arrangement.

In the second arrangement, the connection between premises and conclusion appears to be more robust. Namely, two problems are presented: 1) decline in major local industry due to overseas competition and 2) outdated public policy that inhibits business growth. The author concludes that this region must find new ways to help business grow. This conclusion relates to the "outdated public policy that inhibits business growth premise" because the conclusion makes it possible that a new way to help businesses grow could be to change the said policy and make it more favorable to businesses.

[patrice.antoine]

(D) is out from the fact that no where in the stim does it suggest the region needs to expand into new areas of manufacturing.

The subsequent sentences starting with the phrases "after all" and "moreover" should be treated as indicator words presenting support for our conclusion, similar to premises.

[phoebster21]

I picked D) for this question as well.
For this Q if you apply the "therefore" test then it would make it more likely that the first sentence is the intermediary conclusion.

"This region must find new ways to help business grow, therefore there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas."

As opposed to,

"There is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas, therefore this region must find new ways to help business grow."

The first one seems more logical than the second one. A need to expand into new manufacturing areas is a logical consequence of the region needing to find new ways to help business grow. However, the other way around doesn't seem to make any sense, logically speaking.

Honestly, none of the subsequent posts really seemed to understand what you're saying, but I totally had the SAME thought as you did and picked D.

You don't recommend a specific policy and then say after your recommendation that we need to change. because recommending a specific policy IMPLIES that we need a change.

You say we need to change and then follow it up with a specific policy....


The only way I was able to rule out D was because of the very subtle different between "a need" and "must do"

Ex. The US needs tighter security measures in airports. vs. the US Must increase it's security efforts.

The stim actively says the region MUST find new ways to grow business, but then just postulates some of the various needs .

Hope this helps.

[YudeS218]

Let me be blunt, it is a ridiculous argument.

We may be able to pick the right answer by some kind of technique, but this argument is terrible, at least as terrible as my LSAT skills.