Q25 - Inflation rates will not stabilize

[trevor.lovell]

This question asks us to identify the paragraph that utilizes reasoning that most closely parallels the reasoning in the stimulus.

I chose A without much confidence. While the stimulus said it would be "overly optimistic" to expect global cooperation to solve the inflation crisis, answer A said factory safety could not be improved without "everyone's cooperation." The conclusions were similar, but not exactly parallel.

I narrowed it down to A or D, but ultimately felt that D was wrong because it said it was "unavoidable" that vehicle safety would not be optimal. The stimulus seemed to indicate "if all goes perfectly, things could turn out well, but that's not likely," whereas D seemed to say "things will not turn out well, period."

Any help?

[timmydoeslsat]

This problem does not have a nice clean fit of an answer choice, but the other four have flaws that simply do not match the stimulus.

The conclusion match is an important factor, especially with a some, most type of situation, or if you are down 2 choices and that is the difference. However, for many parallel questions, correct answers do shift terms going from always to likely, etc. It is important to know when to utilize and not utilize a "scorched earth" philosophy on some of these answer choices.

Stimulus:

Inflation Rate Stabilize ---> Rate of Economic Growth Decreases ---> Full Co-op of World Leaders

Therefore, Inflation Rate Stabilize is unlikely.

We can see that the author is assuming that something about those necessary conditions of the inflation rate stabilizing is difficult to make happen.

You can see this is A ---> B ---> C

Therefore A is unlikely.

Answer choices:

A) Factory Safety serious concern ---> Each employee must report hazardous situation

Hazards corrected and accidents prevented ---> Full employee participation in Safety Program

I would stop right there. We are not given a chain, we are not seeing common terms. The idea of "full employee participation in safety program" is not equivalent to "each employee must report hazardous situation." We do not know what all is included in this safety program. Even if you wanted to grant this idea as equivalent, you are simply given this equated term twice as a necessary condition and it is not cleanly linking up like the stimulus.

I would expect another answer choice to do a much better job.

B)

Serious Improving ---> Eliminate ---> Dismissing senior employees

Therefore, no option available but to eliminate senior employees.

The premises were great but the conclusion is not looking good.


C)

Able to arrive at the optimal decision---> Examine all options ---> Delay in presentation of proposal

Therefore, Able to arrive at the optimal decision ---> Delay in presentation of proposal

This is a valid argument and has a conditional conclusion. Not a good fit.


D) Produce safest vehicles possible ---> Must conduct objective structural tests ---> Huge cost overruns

Therefore, unavoidable that level of safety will not be optimal. In other words, not the safest vehicles possible. This does not fit perfectly in the conclusion, but it is the best we have seen so far. We will keep it.


E) Honest best policy ---> Should report company's poor performance in the last year ---> Jobs at risk and stockholders will complain.

Therefore, must not report. This is close, but it does not revert back to our initial sufficient condition. The conclusion is also stronger than the original stimulus, just as choice D was, however D fits the bill better than the others with its premise connections and which variable is mentioned in the conclusion.

[bbirdwell]

The stimulus seemed to indicate "if all goes perfectly, things could turn out well, but that's not likely," whereas D seemed to say "things will not turn out well, period."

Given that our task here is to MATCH, I would say the conclusion "it would be overly optimistic to expect XYZ in the near future" could reasonably be translated as "NO XYZ."

First, make all possible eliminations with this framework in mind, and then, if you must, go back and check out the specific flavor of the conclusion (i.e. was it really "no" or was it more like "probly not"?).

Another way to look at it is that (D) says that "optimal safety" is not achievable, which I think is quite equivalent to "stable inflation" not achievable.

timmydoeslsat is correct when pointing out the usefulness of comparing conclusions.

The conclusion of answer choice (A) is conditional, tipped off by the conditional trigger word "without":
"If no cooperation -->no safety"

Our original conclusion was not conditional in this fashion. Therefore, eliminate (A).

(B) The conclusion here is a call to action, "we should DO something." This is not a good match, either.

(C) Makes a similar mistake to (A) -- the conclusion is conditional.

(D) great match.
max safety --> tests
tests --> huge cost
Therefore: No max safety

Compare it to original: (note we may have to contrapose the first statement in order to see the chain - this is fairly common on tougher matching problems)
stable rate --> slower growth
slower growth --> full cooperation
Therefore: No stable rate.

(E) Among other things, is similar to (B); the conclusion is a call to action. Our original is not. Eliminate.

Hopefully that simplifies things some.

[btwalden]

The conclusion of answer choice (A) is conditional, tipped off by the conditional trigger word "without":
"If no cooperation -->no safety"

Our original conclusion was not conditional in this fashion. Therefore, eliminate (A).

Actually this matches up with the original conclusion where the condition can be avoided with "full cooperation" and is not definite but only "overly optimistic" to think it will happen.

Answer choice D uses "inevitably" and "unavoidable" and it really contrasts with the original passage.

Considering this, and how A. also matches up with the rest of the passage I don't see how A. is wrong, but especially how D. would be better than A.