Q8 - In the past, the railroads

[jamiejames]

can someone explain why B is incorrect and why E is correct?

[timmydoeslsat]

can someone explain why B is incorrect and why E is correct?

B is way too broad of a statement for this must be true question stem. We were told about railroad companies in Ostronia, but nothing more. We cannot jump from that to inferring few companies in Ostronia. Perhaps the food industry in Ostronia receives subsidies but takes into account customers' needs and desires.

E is something that is must be true due to us being told that in recent years, government subsidies allowed these companies to operate, and we know that railroad companies were not taking into account customers needs and desires. So we can say that some companies survived without the customers in mind.

Wrong answer choices:

A) Negated logic basically.
B) Too broad.
C) Not must be true, maybe they would cut services.
D) Transportation system is too broad from the stimulus given.

[jionggangtu]

I think the reason B is incorrect is not because it is too broad.

I think the argument says, the companis continue to disregard customers' needs and desires, means ALL of the Ostronian railroad companies, so this is saying none of them regarded customers' needs and desires.

B says few, gramatically speaking, if there are 10 railroad companies, few means 1 or 2 companies of the 10.

We can not infere 1 or 2 from none. That's why B is incorrect.

[mxl392]

How can you conclude E from the stimulus though? All we know is that governments subsidized the railroad company. We don't know that governments will subsidize barbers who disregard their customers' wants and needs.

None of the answer choices seem right to me.

[timmydoeslsat]

I think the reason B is incorrect is not because it is too broad.

I think the argument says, the companis continue to disregard customers' needs and desires, means ALL of the Ostronian railroad companies, so this is saying none of them regarded customers' needs and desires.

B says few, gramatically speaking, if there are 10 railroad companies, few means 1 or 2 companies of the 10.

We can not infere 1 or 2 from none. That's why B is incorrect.

I disagree.

We need to really be strict about something that must be true. To discuss railroad companies in the stimulus, yet have an answer choice that discusses companies in a broadsense is problematic. We do not know whether it is true that few companies that received subsidies took into account customers' wants. Are we told anything about non-railroad companies receiving subsidies?

No.

Perhaps all of those companies do, which would ruin the idea of few. Answer choice B requires you to consider all companies in this place, not just railroads.


mxl392,

The some companies part in answer choice E refers to the railroad companies. Do we know that there is at least one company in Ostania in recent years that disregarded the desires of customers but still survived? Yes, the railroad companies that we discussed as being subsidized by the government.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation Timmy!

We absolutely know that some companies in Ostronia (railroad companies) have had little regard for the desires of their customers and have survived nonetheless.

Incorrect Answers

(A) is a hypothetical "what if?" about which we have no idea.
(B) is too strong, though had it said "a few companies had not taken the needs and desires of their customers into account" instead of "few had taken the needs and desires into account" that would have changed the meaning and made it incorrect. As is, it's too strong.
(C) is possibly true, but not something we can prove. Maybe they could collect donations from the Red Cross to help cover the losses!
(D) is unsupported. The railroads are operating at a loss, but that doesn't mean that they are no more efficient than they were.

[lsatfreak2013]

can someone explain why B is incorrect and why E is correct?

The tip-off for me in (B) was that it says the companies haven't taken customer needs 'into account' and the stimulus says customer needs were 'disregarded'.

I don't know if you've had the pleasure of filing a complaint or calling your political representation to voice your opinion. While it may seem as if the two are synonymous when your opinion/complaint is responded with, 'we'll take it into account', it's not. Accounting for (or not accounting for) something may be an element of or fall under the category of disregarding, but the latter term is more vast and may include other actions.

[lorraineogan]

For answer choice A, I am wondering if I have correctly translated the statement "But because of government subsidies that have permitted Ostronian railroad companies to operate[...]" into correct conditional form.

I translated it to be:

subsidies --> operate

Contrapositive
~operate --> ~subsidies

Answer choice A does not satisfy either of the above, so it cannot be true. It's quite tricky if you aren't paying the utmost attention!

[dahee.suh]

I think when looking at why (B) is incorrect, it is important to note the difference between "A few" and "few" (answer B states "FEW companies")

To quote mattsherman from another Manhattan LSAT forum,

If you say, "a few A's are B's," that would imply some (lets say 2 - maybe 3 - or more)

If you say, "few A's are B's," that would imply that while some A's are B's, that most A's are not B's. And it's the latter form that the test-writers typically utilize in the construction of the chain of reasoning.

Applied to (B):
While SOME companies in Ostronia that have received gov sub have taken the needs and desires of their customers into account, MOST companies that have received gov sub have NOT taken the needs and desires of their customers into account.

The stimulus mentions NO company that has received subsidies that TOOK customer need into account, so the first part of (B) (While SOME companies~) doesn't stand.

Also, we only know about ONE company that has received gov sub that has NOT taken customer need into account, which is the railroad company. ONE company is NOT ENOUGH to say MOST, so the second part of (B) (MOST companies that have ...) doesn't stand either.

To conclude, (B) is too broad and/or too extreme in terms of degree.

If (B) had actually stated "A few", it would be totally incorrect as "A few" is similar to "Some", yet the stimulus doesn't mention ANY company that has received gov sub that TOOK customer needs into account. Thus, there is no way for us to know if this is true, and it cannot be the correct answer for a must be true question.

[tommywallach]

Great post, Dahee, and welcome to the forum!