#14 - Certain methods of creating high-quality counterfeit

[Kristintrapp]

I am struggling to understand correct answer, B. I selected A. using the negation technique.

I figured that if the copying technology was NOT currently sophisticated enough anyways, then preventing high-quality counterfeit banknotes by making it hard to copy them is pretty pointless... since they can't be copied anyways...

But upon reviewing, I understand that this isn't really addressing the issue because they are talking about measuring, not copying.

But I'm struggling to understand why B is correct (I think I'm just misunderstanding what it's saying?). I understand B as saying that once the [criminals] measure the banknotes accurately, there's no other form of danger/threat to them counterfeiting them. (basically saying that this is the only form of danger/threat)

So negating that would say that after they measure them correctly, there IS more threat/avenues that they use to counterfeit them. But the logic would still hold true, no? Because if that's the first step, and they prevent them from doing that, then whatever danger would have followed from that wouldn't happen anyways.

Does this make sense? Can you clarify?

[Adam Tyson]

It looks to me like you are approaching this question as an Assumption question, Kristin, using the Negation Technique to find an answer that, when negated, destroys the argument. That's the right approach for Assumptions, but this is not an Assumption question! Instead, it is a Justify the Conclusion question, asking us to supply the answer that, when added to the premise(s), proves the conclusion. Some clues that this is a Justify, rather than Assumption, question are the use of the word "if" in the question stem. Assumption questions ask you which of the following must the author have believed or assumed - there is no "if" about it. A Justify question, though, will ask you "which of the following, if true or if assumed, allows the conclusion to be properly drawn (proves the conclusion)" or "the conclusion follows logically (is proven) if which of the following is true or is assumed."

That language of "properly drawn" or "follows logically" or even the more obvious "is justified" is another clue that we are looking to justify a conclusion rather than identify an assumption of the argument. In other parlance, we are looking for a "sufficient assumption" rather than a "necessary assumption". We generally teach the Negation Technique only for Assumption ("necessary assumption") questions, not Justify ("sufficient assumption") questions.

Here, you want to prove the conclusion that we MUST impede accurate measurement if we are to stop high quality counterfeits. To prove that we have to do that, we need to show that nothing else will stop them. Answer B does that by telling us that once accurate measurements are made, nothing else stands in the way of making the counterfeit banknote. Special paper or inks are irrelevant, for example.

Answer A doesn't help us any here. Sophisticated copying technology doesn't prove that we have to prevent accurate measurements in order to stop counterfeiting. In fact, it might make measurements irrelevant if all you have to do to make a high quality copy is just run a bill through a copier.

The key here is recognizing that this is a Justify question and not an Assumption question, and thus leaving the Negation Technique out of your approach. Don't let the word "assumed" in the stem fool you! "If assumed" is the same as saying "if you accept the answer as true", and you will see that in weaken, strengthen, resolve the paradox, and justify questions all over the test. The presence of "if" takes it out of the realm of assumptions.

Keep at it!

[Kristintrapp]

Ah~ perfect-- makes so much more sense! I didn't catch my mistake of misidentifying the problem type.

Thanks!

[snowy]

Can you explain why C is wrong? Isn’t C necessary in order for the argument’s conclusion to even be plausible (for it to be possible to make images that are impossible to accurately measure)?

I ruled out B because I thought it reversed the sufficient and necessary conditions. I thought the stimulus says IF you want to prevent —> THEN you must make measurements hard. But that doesn’t mean that that’s the only impediment, right? I thought it would be the only impediment if the diagram was switched: IF you make measuring hard —> THEN you have prevented counterfeiting.

I’d really appreciate any help with this! Thank you!!

[Erik Shum]

Hi Snowy,

Regarding answer choice (C), even if counterfeiters had superior printing technology, that would not prohibit the government from rendering the images on genuine banknotes difficult or impossible to measure. And if the counterfeiters cannot measure the images, they cannot rely on those "certain methods" of counterfeiting. Superior printing technology is not required by the government to prevent those counterfeiters so therefore answer choice (C) does allow the conclusion to be properly drawn.

Regarding answer choice (B): You correctly diagram the stimulus and identify that the stimulus does not establish that the difficulty/impossibility of making accurate measurements is the only impediment to counterfeiters. As a result, in order to allow the conclusion to be properly drawn (preventing the production of high-quality counterfeits), the correct answer choice must make it so that accurate measurements is the only impediment. Answer choice (B) accomplishes that.

I suspect you may have misunderstood or lost track of the stem as your reasoning for answer choice (B) otherwise appears on point.

[AnimalCrossingLSATer]

Hi PowerScore -

I actually got this question right on both my timed section and blind review, but I’m questioning my reasoning and wanted to see if what I did is something that is sustainable to “Justify the Conclusion” questions, using this question as an example.

I got B only because I felt that ALL of the other choices were outside the parameters of the stimulus and thus, irrelevant. As in, with my thoughts as I went through all of the answer choices:

A - “today’s copying technology”? So?

C - “better printing technology”? That’s not addressed.

D - “few countries”? Uh, ok…?

E - “New designs”? New doesn’t always mean better (i.e. less counterfeits).

The concepts in the stimulus, as I understand them, are: a) methods of creating high-quality counterfeits, b) accurate measurements of images from real banknotes, and c) production of those counterfeit banknotes, (plus the difficulty/impossibility thereof). So I felt the correct answer would be restricted to these concepts only.

I get that in “Justify the Conclusion” questions, the correct answer will likely either: a) contain a “new” element in the conclusion only, or b) contain elements in the premises but not in the conclusion. (Basing this off of pp. 335-336 of the 2017 Logic Games Bible).

I’m trying to be sensitive to answers that are irrelevant/out of scope, as I personally think they’re one of the most frequent reasons why [answer choice under consideration] is incorrect for several question types, including "Justify the Conclusion".

My question is: based on my approach, was I too sensitive in using “irrelevant” as the basis for eliminating the incorrect answers? I feel like I shouldn’t eliminate all four answer choices on that basis alone in “Justify the Conclusion” questions, so I have some doubts as to what extent should I use the “irrelevant” card for this question type.

Thanks very much for your assistance with this question!

-Dustine B. (“AnimalCrossingLSATer”)

[AnimalCrossingLSATer]

Hi PowerScore -

I actually got this question right on both my timed section and blind review, but I’m questioning my reasoning and wanted to see if what I did is something that is sustainable to “Justify the Conclusion” questions, using this question as an example.

I got B only because I felt that ALL of the other choices were outside the parameters of the stimulus and thus, irrelevant. As in, with my thoughts as I went through all of the answer choices:

A - “today’s copying technology”? So?

C - “better printing technology”? That’s not addressed.

D - “few countries”? Uh, ok…?

E - “New designs”? New doesn’t always mean better (i.e. less counterfeits).

The concepts in the stimulus, as I understand them, are: a) methods of creating high-quality counterfeits, b) accurate measurements of images from real banknotes, and c) production of those counterfeit banknotes, (plus the difficulty/impossibility thereof). So I felt the correct answer would be restricted to these concepts only.

I get that in “Justify the Conclusion” questions, the correct answer will likely either: a) contain a “new” element in the conclusion only, or b) contain elements in the premises but not in the conclusion. (Basing this off of pp. 335-336 of the 2017 Logic Games Bible).

I’m trying to be sensitive to answers that are irrelevant/out of scope, as I personally think they’re one of the most frequent reasons why [answer choice under consideration] is incorrect for several question types, including "Justify the Conclusion".

My question is: based on my approach, was I too sensitive in using “irrelevant” as the basis for eliminating the incorrect answers? I feel like I shouldn’t eliminate all four answer choices on that basis alone in “Justify the Conclusion” questions, so I have some doubts as to what extent should I use the “irrelevant” card for this question type.

Thanks very much for your assistance with this question!

-Dustine B. (“AnimalCrossingLSATer”)

Apologies for the 2nd post, but correction from my above post: pp. 335-336 of the 2017 Logical Reasoning Bible, NOT the Logic Games Bible. Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Dustine,

It's a good question, and generally speaking I would be careful about labeling all the wrong answers in a Family 2 or 3 question (Strengthen, Justify, Assumption, Weaken) irrelevant. But sometimes that's the case, because the scope of the conclusion is so narrow that many answers just don't matter. That's true on this question (so good job, and good instincts!).

What is the conclusion about? Preventing production of high-quality counterfeit banknotes, and one of the things necessary for preventing that production (making images very difficult or impossible to measure accurately).

Let's take a quick look through the subject matter of the wrong answers, as you did:
(A): "replicating any paper product"? Nope, nothing to do with measuring images accurately, and nothing to do with preventing production. It's definitely irrelevant!
(C): the comparative level of printing technology that governments have versus counterfeiters? Nope, nothing to do with measuring images accurately, and nothing to do with preventing production. It's irrelevant too.
(D): the number of countries with counterfeit-prevention-effective banknote practices? Nope, our conclusion is a hypothetical about what's necessary to prevent counterfeiting, not a statement of fact about whether current practices actually do prevent counterfeiting. Irrelevant!
(E): "new designs" in general and what they lead to? It has nothing to do with measuring images accurately to prevent counterfeiting, so it's irrelevant as well.

Good work on this question--it's a good reminder that irrelevance is a good reason to eliminate in some Family 2 and 3 questions. Don't expect it on every answer on such questions. But don't distrust yourself when that's what you're seeing!

I hope this helps!

[AnimalCrossingLSATer]

Hi Dustine,

It's a good question, and generally speaking I would be careful about labeling all the wrong answers in a Family 2 or 3 question (Strengthen, Justify, Assumption, Weaken) irrelevant. But sometimes that's the case, because the scope of the conclusion is so narrow that many answers just don't matter. That's true on this question (so good job, and good instincts!).

What is the conclusion about? Preventing production of high-quality counterfeit banknotes, and one of the things necessary for preventing that production (making images very difficult or impossible to measure accurately).

Let's take a quick look through the subject matter of the wrong answers, as you did:
(A): "replicating any paper product"? Nope, nothing to do with measuring images accurately, and nothing to do with preventing production. It's definitely irrelevant!
(C): the comparative level of printing technology that governments have versus counterfeiters? Nope, nothing to do with measuring images accurately, and nothing to do with preventing production. It's irrelevant too.
(D): the number of countries with counterfeit-prevention-effective banknote practices? Nope, our conclusion is a hypothetical about what's necessary to prevent counterfeiting, not a statement of fact about whether current practices actually do prevent counterfeiting. Irrelevant!
(E): "new designs" in general and what they lead to? It has nothing to do with measuring images accurately to prevent counterfeiting, so it's irrelevant as well.

Good work on this question--it's a good reminder that irrelevance is a good reason to eliminate in some Family 2 and 3 questions. Don't expect it on every answer on such questions. But don't distrust yourself when that's what you're seeing!

I hope this helps!

Hi Jeremy -

Thanks very much for the detailed response and encouragement - I appreciate it! Good to know that it does seem to be the case that in some "Justify the Conclusion" questions, the scope really is that narrow that a sizable chunk of the answer choices can be ruled out because of irrelevance, particularly in relation to the impacts toward the concept(s) in the conclusion.

-Dustine