Q5 - As a result of modern

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with what Matt wrote with his three examples, but I disagree that this question acts like Necessary Assumption.

As he said:
Which one of the following principles is illustrated in the argument above?
I think of a Necessary Assumption question.

But the key word missing here is "argument". When a question stem describes the stimulus as information / statements / passage / situation, then the stimulus usually doesn't contain any reasoning.

And here I don't think there is any reasoning. So I would think of this question more like Inference.

The stem basically reads "which answer choice is most precisely exemplified by the info above"
which is very close to Inference,
"which answer choice is most strongly supported by the info above".

Whether we think Inference or Necessary Assumption, we should be wary of extreme language. Having only read three sentences of info, it's unlikely that we can justify strong claims in the answer choices.

(A) "cannot" is extreme but saying "cannot be ALL" is actually weak. This answer could be read kinda like "not all problems can be solved by technical or scientific innovation".

Well to support that idea, you only need one example of a problem that couldn't be solved by technical or scientific innovation.

Do we have an example? Do we have evidence that "potentially devastating financial problems for some social welfare programs" can't be solved by technical or scientific innovation? We don't. The problems currently exist but we have no support for saying that technical / scientific innovation can't ultimately solve them.

(B) This is really opinionated, normative wording. It's hard to justify that something "should/ought" happen or not when all you're hearing is facts. This is also a sweeping claim ("until" makes it conditional strength), so this applies to all technological innovations, not just the one we heard about.

(C) "Every" and "unavoidable" make this way too strong. We only have one example of enhanced quality of life carrying with it a negative consequence.

(D) "All" is way too strong. We know nothing about "all social institutions".

(E) Hello, soft language! To support that something "can" happen, we only need one example. As a previous poster mentioned, we have to accept that 'pain' and 'short lifespans' are problems, but that's comfortably in the realm of common sense definitional exchanges that LSAT will allow.

Hope this helps.


#officialexplanation

[LSAT-Chang]

Hmm.. I had trouble choosing between A and E. I chose E when I did this as a timed section, but during my review, I noticed that it doesn't really "solve one set of problems".. we are never told in the stimulus that there has been a problem before modern medicine came into play. Does this make sense? So I didn't see where the "problem" was that was "solved", whereas with A, "scientific innovation cannot be the solution to all problems", I thought this was a good proposition that illustrated the stimulus. Any thoughts?

[timmydoeslsat]

The problem with (A) is that we do not know that scientific and technical innovation cannot be the solution to all problems.

As of now, that is true in the moment. But cannot implies never.

Answer choice E is better because it states that solving one set can create a different set of problems.


As of the moment in the stimulus, modern medicine has allowed more people to have long pain-free lives. This has already causing a different set of problems, financial ones. If modern medicine is able to make it to where everyone has long and pain-free lives, this can cause a different set of problems.

Each other answer choices is simply too strong.

A) Cannot
B) Implies a value system favoring finances over live.
C) Every enhancement?
D) All social institutions?

[LSAT-Chang]

I think I should make myself a little clearer. The reason why I'm having a hard time figuring out why (A) is incorrect is because to me, (A) sounds like this: "modern medicine cannot be the solution to ALL problems" -- yeah this is true because it may have been the solution to SOME problems (i.e. short and painful lives) but cannot solve some OTHER problems (i.e. financial problems), thus it cannot be the solution to ALL problems.. do you see my point?

The problem I have with (E) we aren't told in the stimulus that there has been a problem in the past that has been solved by modern medicine. I mean I guess we could assume that there used to be "short and painful lives" and modern medicine "solved" this problem by allowing people to enjoy long and pain-free lives, but that is what my issue was with this answer. The stimulus just says "as a result of modern medicine, MORE people have been able to enjoy long and pain-free lives" -- which could be true that this wasn't a problem in the past -- so it didn't really "solve" a "problem" per se, but just made something better (i.e. having MORE of something happen), not necessarily SOLVED a PROBLEM. Thoughts??

[timmydoeslsat]

I think I should make myself a little clearer. The reason why I'm having a hard time figuring out why (A) is incorrect is because to me, (A) sounds like this: "modern medicine cannot be the solution to ALL problems" -- yeah this is true because it may have been the solution to SOME problems (i.e. short and painful lives) but cannot solve some OTHER problems (i.e. financial problems), thus it cannot be the solution to ALL problems.. do you see my point?

But we do not know that scientific or technical innovation cannot be the solution to all problems.

You are bringing in a present to future issue.

How do you know that it is not the case that innovations in science and technology will not be able to cut the cost of building homes to next to nothing? This could solve the welfare budget issues for example. Or growing food for a cost of next to nothing, thereby solving the financial issue of social welfare programs.



Answer choice (E) is abstractly telling us that fixing the problem of people living rather short lives or living lives with pain can lead to new issues to deal with, such as financial ones.

[LSAT-Chang]

Is this an inference question? I always get confused when I see the word "proposition".. I thought of it more as a principle question.. I may have totally misunderstood this..

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

When I see that the principle is "exemplified" or "illustrated" in an argument, I tend to think of them as Necessary Assumptions.

Principles can appear in many types of questions. Here's how deal with expectations for the answer choices for the following versions of principle questions.

Which one of the following arguments conforms to the principle above?
I think of an Inference question.

Which one of the following principles most strongly supports the argument above?
I think of a Sufficient Assumption question (though technically it's just a Strengthen question, it feels more like a Sufficient Assumption).

Which one of the following principles is illustrated in the argument above?
I think of a Necessary Assumption question.

[ann8839]

Hi ! could you explain more why this can be a necessary assumption ?