Q14 - Superconductor development

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The increased efficiency of energy transportation will probably improve industrial productivity.
Evidence: Something similar happened before -- oil and gas had increased efficiency (in the form of lower shipping costs) and industrial productivity improved.

Answer Anticipation:
They're asking us about the 2nd claim, which happens to be our Conclusion, so our prephrase is pretty easy: What role does it play? It's the Main Conclusion.

Knowing that it's the conclusion quickly eliminates C/D/E.

(How did we know it was the Main Conclusion? It has an opinion indicator, "probably", and it is supported, as indicated by the premise indicator "for")

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! On a first pass just keep it, since it correctly calls our claim "a conclusion". The second half of it is accurate, since part of the Evidence (partial support) involved describing shipping costs as a function of how much material is lost in transit.

(B) Need to look closer … you COULD call a conclusion a "generalization", but this answer choice incorrectly says that the first sentence of the argument is an illustration of our conclusion. An illustration, or "example", of our conclusion would need to be a situation in which "improved energy transfer led to improved industrial productivity". The first sentence says no such thing. It doesn't even discuss industrial productivity. Although the first sentence does give some supporting context to the conclusion, we just can't call it an illustration of that claim.

(C) Our claim is a conclusion, not an assumption. Also, "assumption" will ALWAYS be a wrong answer on this question type, since by definition an assumption is "unstated".

(D) Our claim is a conclusion, not premise/evidence.

(E) Our claim is a conclusion, not premise/evidence.

Takeaway/Pattern: The four big premise indicators are F.A.B.S = "for, after all, because, since". Whenever we see "for" or "after all" indicating a premise, we know that the previous idea was a conclusion. On several tricky ID the Conclusion questions, LSAT has used this same template. Start with a fact, and make the second claim an opinion (usually indicated by an opinion indicator like "probably") that seeks to explain that first fact or draw some implication from it.

#officialexplanation

[ssfriend.88]

This is a role in the argument question.

I need to determine what part "superconductor development will probably improve industrial productivity" plays in the stimulus.

The first sentence makes a statement about superconductors being transported further with less energy loss. Seems like background information so far.

Here's our piece of the puzzle, and its followed by a claim that similar improvements occurred when oil and natural gas replaced coal as primary fossil fuels. Ok, so they're trying to parallel the similarity. Coal was replaced by a newer energy and productivity improved, so they're indicating that superconductors will likely improve productivity in a similar manner.

Furthering this idea, shipping costs, which include the losses of material in transport, decreased. This is important. The losses of material corresponds to the first sentence. Less energy (the material) will be lost using superconductors.

We can expect superconductors to therefore reduce shipping costs, which were indicated as a function of productivity. If costs go down, the productivity should go up.

The argument is all building around the statement in question, making the role the conclusion of the stimulus.

Answer choice A says this explicitly.

C, D, and E seemed relatively easy to eliminate if I simply went through POE. B could be a little tricky if the conclusion wasn't apparent. The first sentence isn't actually illustrating a generalization, but exemplifying the parallel similarities to other times when a new energy source has emerged.

[maryadkins]

Great job!

[hovaLSAT]

out of curiosity, what is a good "lsat-y" definition to keep in the back of our heads when we see the word generalization as described in answer choice B?

I noticed that this comes up quite a lot in both wrong and right answer choices for method of argument type questions but I just never took the time out to solidly define it for myself as I often get these by POE..

The google dictionary definition says

"a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.
"he was making sweeping generalizations""

But I was wondering if there is something more exam specific that I should keep in mind...

Thanks!

[amil91]

out of curiosity, what is a good "lsat-y" definition to keep in the back of our heads when we see the word generalization as described in answer choice B?

I noticed that this comes up quite a lot in both wrong and right answer choices for method of argument type questions but I just never took the time out to solidly define it for myself as I often get these by POE..

The google dictionary definition says

"a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.
"he was making sweeping generalizations""

But I was wondering if there is something more exam specific that I should keep in mind...

Thanks!

From the class I took I learned that generalization basically means conclusion.

I picked B for this question and was torn between A and B. Could anyone give me a better reason as to why B is wrong? I read the first post, but I do not completely see how the first sentence isn't an illustration. To me the first sentence is illustrating how superconductor development will improve industrial productivity which is a generalization or the conclusion of the argument.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Very interesting question, hovaLSAT! amil91 has the right idea that generalizations are usually conclusions! But not every conclusion is a generalization.

That dictionary definition is pretty much on point - a generalization is essentially a blanket statement. So, you might see an argument core that looks like this:

Every cat I know has stripes. So cats must always have stripes!

Here, we have a really broad conclusion - every cat?! That generalization about all cats isn't really supported by the premise - that evidence is only about a few cats that I personally know.

It's possible to have a blanket statement as a premise, but since we accept all premises as true, any such blanket statements would be taken to be a rule. Consider the reverse of the argument above:

Every cat has stripes. Therefore, every cat I know must have stripes.

This argument is totally valid. The blanket statement about all cats is taken to be true, and that supports the conclusion that the few I know must have stripes.

While a sweeping statement might appear in either premise or conclusion, if the LSAT is referring to something as a generalization, that's going to be an overbroad/blanket conclusion that's not fully supported.

And amil91, taking this definition of generalization into account, we can see that this conclusion is not a generalization. There's no unsupported sweeping 'all' statement. The conclusion is simply a prediction about a future event based on debatably similar past events, rather than a blanket 'all' statement based on a few instances.

Does that help clear this up a bit?

[ttunden]

I actually selected A but then during the test changed to B

What i did not like about A is the 2nd half. the claim that "shipping costs...losses of material in transit" offered as partial support

that specific claim is not partial support. It was just a definition of shipping costs. I am confused regarding what the 2nd half of A is referring to. that specific definition or that entire sentence?

if it was the latter , then I can easily understand how A is the answer.

[ttunden]

Please help Manhattan Staff my test is next week

[gaheexlee]

if it was the latter , then I can easily understand how A is the answer.

I'm not a MLsat staff but I think it's safe to assume the latter. I've never encountered an answer choice for this type of a question that quoted the entire sentence of the stimulus.

I'm also taking the lsat in 2 days. Best of luck to us both

[smsotolongo]

Quick question. The first statement can be taken as a conclusion or a claim as many LSAT passages start as a claim. When you factor in the first part of the second sentence "This will probably improve industrial productivity," doesn't that make the first statement the conclusion. It is almost like an extension of the first sentence or making a claim about it, which is what he need to have a conclusion. Typically conclusions are some type of claim right?

[asafezrati]

Quick question. The first statement can be taken as a conclusion or a claim as many LSAT passages start as a claim. When you factor in the first part of the second sentence "This will probably improve industrial productivity," doesn't that make the first statement the conclusion. It is almost like an extension of the first sentence or making a claim about it, which is what he need to have a conclusion. Typically conclusions are some type of claim right?

The first sentence isn't supported by any information. For this reason it can't be a conclusion, since conclusions, by definition, require an argument standing behind them.

This is the structure:

1st Premise: SC Dev will enable...
2nd Premise: an analogy (a different tech. development in the past regarding transporting something led to improvement in industry at that time).
=>
Conclusion (2nd sentence): this (SC Dev) will probably improve industrial productivity...

Yes, the 2nd sentence may sound like an extension of the 1st, and yes conclusions are claims, but you need to ask yourself what is the item being supported (conclusion) and which item is the supporter (premise).

You can test this issue with a basic premise-conclusion structure using words such as "thus" and "because of". We clearly can't say something like: BECAUSE SC Dev will probably improve industrial productivity, SC Dev will enable energy to be transported...

ok?