#11 - Manager: This company’s supply chain will develop

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (B)

In this stimulus, the manager’s argument concerning problems with the company’s supply chain is
structurally complicated. It begins with a conditional statement that if the company does not change
its vendor contracts now, its supply chain will develop significant weaknesses. This statement is
offered as a fact that sets the stage for the argument, and is not part of the reasoning that leads to the
manager’s conclusion.

Next, using the “some people say...” rhetorical device, the manager puts forward the anticipated view
of some people that there is no need to take immediate action to change the vendor contracts since
the projected problems are far in the future. However—as we could anticipate based on the use of the
“some people say...” device—the manager immediately concludes that their position is wrong and
labels their position “irresponsible.” In support of this conclusion, the manager argues by analogy,
pointing out that it would be negligent for a financial planner to tell a 30-year old client not to worry
about retirement investing since the client would not retire for another 35 years.

The question stem identifies this as a Main Point question, and our job is to select the answer choice
that best restates the argument’s main conclusion. We can prephrase that the manager’s conclusion is
that it is irresponsible not to address the vendor contract problems now just because the supply chain
problems will not emerge until later.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice restates the anticipated view of others that the manager
concludes is irresponsible.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice because it restates the manager’s conclusion,
as described above.

Answer choice (C): Here, the answer choice restates the factual assertion made at the beginning of
the stimulus to establish that there is a problem with the vendor supply contracts.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is inconsistent with the stimulus. Although the manager
made an analogy between the company’s responsibilities and those of a financial planner, the
manager did not say that the company should follow the same practices as the financial planner.

Answer choice (E): As with answer choice (D), this answer is inconsistent with the stimulus, which
did not say that financial planners should advise their clients to save for retirement only if retirement
is far in the future. Rather, the manager’s analogy indicated that financial planners should advise
retirement savings even when retirement is far in the future. Even if this answer choice were an
accurate restatement of what occurred in the stimulus it would still be incorrect, because it relates to
the manager’s support for the conclusion, rather than to the conclusion itself.

[willmcchez]

I'm not understanding why C is incorrect.

I have never gotten one of these main point LR questions wrong, and I'm really good at identifying the main conclusion in pretty much all LR questions (when a conclusion is included!).

I see the argument part referenced in B (the correct answer) as being a subsidary/supporting conclusion of the argument part referenced in C. I think the entire stimulus supports the idea that "we need to change vendor contracts now."

Clearly, I'm wrong about this, so give me a hand here lol.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Will,

Thanks for the question!

The thing they did with (B) was that they reworded it enough so that at first glance it doesn't look like it will be right, which makes it easier to fall into the trap of (C). However, looking closely at what you said, I think you may have missed the point of (B) since it is very similar to your statement that, "I think the entire stimulus supports the idea that "we need to change vendor contracts now." " I agree with that, and that same point is stated clearly in the first and third sentences of the stimulus, which reflect the conclusion. So, with your summarizing statement in mind, let's looks at (B) and (C):

• Answer choice (B): This answer begins, "It would be irresponsible to postpone changes," which is the same as "we need to change vendor contracts now." This mirrors our overall point, and the reason given (that weaknesses won't be apparent for a while) is also spot on. This is almost exactly what you prephrased, it seems.
  
  Answer choice (C): I see this answer as a premise in the argument above. This answer states that without changes we know problems will occur eventually, but it never says "make changes now." A way to look at this answer is that the Manager agrees with it, but thinks that despite it being true, we need to disregard it and go a step further to make immediate changes.
  
  Note how slick the language is in these two answers. (B) uses this very wordy manner to convey "make changes" but then (C) is far more direct with the language. At a glance, one would be drawn to (C) on that basis, but (B) is the one that captures the meaning of the argument more completely.
  
  One more point: note how your summary was flat, declarative statement (like (B)), not in the form of a conditional (like (C)). Just an interesting point to make when analyzing these answers.

Last, I really like the final comment you made about being wrong about this. All too often, test takers don't want to accept that LSAC is always right, and they try to fight it. I like how you've accepted that this is their world—that will serve you in good standing as you keep preparing!

Thanks!

[Leela]

Hi Dave,

I had the same reaction to these answer choices as Will and just wanted to say that your description above was really helpful in separating B from C. I had missed that C uses conditional language for a premise. As a general rule, in must be true questions that ask to identify the conclusion, is it okay to automatically eliminate answer choices with premise indicators or are there instances where we would see premise indicators in a conclusion?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Leela!

Be a little careful with the language Dave used there. Conditional language ("if," "then," "unless") should never be construed as a premise indicator. In fact, there are many conclusions of arguments (even on the LSAT) that are conditional statements (just not in this question). And the terms that serve to indicate conditional statements are never (or, at least, extremely rarely, because I cannot recall such an instance) used to identify a claim as a premise. In short, you can't just use the conditional language of answer choice C to say it's a premise. You have to rely on the relationship between that conditional claim, and the claim that answer choice B paraphrases, and how those claims fit with the rest of the argument.

Regarding your question, a common premise indicator (a term or phrase like "since," "for," "given that," "because") is highly unlikely to appear as the term introducing a main conclusion. But sometimes a term like "because" or "for" is found elsewhere in a conclusion (not "introducing" the conclusion). In such a position, that term is unlikely to be serving a "premise indicator" function. Here's an example to illustrate the difference I'm talking about:

• 1. Because I have applied to law school, it's therefore possible I will be admitted to and attend law school.

• 2. Jane, whose mother is a famous trial lawyer, is attending law school. Thus, Jane must be attending law school because she wants to follow in her mother's footsteps.

In argument (1), "because" is a premise indicator, introducing the idea that I have applied to law school, which supports the conclusion that it's possible I'll be admitted to and attend law school. In argument (2), "because" is found midstream in the conclusion, and serves the function of identifying a causal conclusion.

So, the takeaway should be that you should always rely on context and position to determine whether a particular term is a premise indicator. And always rely on context to determine whether a claim is a premise or a conclusion.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[Imcuffy]

Hi,
I've read through the posts and slowly read through David's through response but I am still having a problem differentiating why answer choice (B) is correct and answer choice (C) is incorrect.

This was my thought when reading the stimulus:

The conclusion is: The company's supply chain will develop significant weaknesses unless we make changes to our vendor contracts now.

Then: the author goes on to state that what some people argue (a rebuttal to what he believes) and he follows by saying that the argument of the critic is irresponsible. (so far in my mind, this is all support to his overall conclusion of the above stated.)

Finally he gives an example of why it would be irresponsible to defer making needed changes.

-NOW THE ANSWER CHOICES-

(b) It would be IRRESPONSIBLE to postpone changes to the vendor contracts just because the supply chain will not develop weaknesses for a long time.

(c) If no changes are made to the vendors contracts, the supply chain will eventually develop significant weaknesses.

-MY MIND-

When I saw "irresponsible" in answer choice B, I thought that choice would be wrong because in the stimulus, he refers to irresponsible as a rebuttal to what some argue and that is a premise that only supports his overall conclusion of "The company's supply chain will develop significant weaknesses unless we make changes to our vendor contracts now."

When I saw answer choice "c", it seems that this is more closely aligned to the conclusion and that answer choice "c" reflects the same conditional relationship as the conclusion's conditional relationship.

PLEASEEEEEE HELP ME OUT DAVE, I DONT SEE IT YET!

[Adam Tyson]

Happy to help, Imcuffy!

First, let's look at your prephrase of the conclusion, which you identified as the first sentence of the stimulus. A conclusion only exists if there is at least one premise to support it. So, scan the stimulus - can you find any evidence that supports that claim? Is there any statement that tells us WHY the supply chain will develop weaknesses?

I can't find any, and that's because there is no such evidence. The author isn't trying to prove that first sentence, but simply expects us to accept it as true. That's proof that the first sentence is not only not the main conclusion of the argument, it isn't any kind of conclusion at all! Again, a conclusion only exists in relationship to at least one premise used to support it. Conversely, a premise only exists if it is used to support at least one conclusion. If a claim has no support, and gives no support, then it is neither a premise nor a conclusion.

The rebuttal is the argument here. The author isn't arguing about weaknesses in the supply chain, but is arguing that postponing action to fix that problem would be irresponsible. Everything, including the analogy of the financial planner, is designed to support that claim. "That is an irresponsible approach" is the main conclusion because it gets all the support and gives no support to anything else.

The first sentence, as Dave said in his post, is a premise that supports the need for immediate action, indicating that postponing such action would be irresponsible. It got no support, but it gave some support to the main conclusion, and that is the essence of a premise.

I hope that clears it up! Short answer: a statement is not a conclusion unless there is at least one premise to back it up!