LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8950
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#24971
Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (A)

As with any Method of Reasoning question, we begin our review of the stimulus with an analysis of the structure of the argument. By their very nature, Method of Reasoning questions require us to understand how the author moves from the premises to the ultimate conclusion. In this case, the author argues by analogy, stating that just as oil and gas improved industrial productivity, so too will superconductors improve industrial productivity. The author supports this claim by stating how the two cases are similar. In both situations, the technology encouraged productivity by improving the method of moving the energy.

This question asks us to determine what role the claim that superconductor development will probably improve industrial productivity played in the argument. Since we already analyzed the structure of the argument, we already have a head start. We know that the claim is supported by the rest of the argument, which makes it the conclusion of the argument. While the answer choices may be more complex than simply recognizing that the claim is the conclusion of the argument, it should help us narrow down the answer choices.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This is the only answer choice that correctly identifies the argument part as the conclusion. As described above, the general structure of the argument is an argument by analogy, the example of fossil fuels is used to support the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect. The listed part is not a generalization, as it is not a broad statement to be applied to a wide variety of situations.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect as it confuses the premise and the conclusion. The ultimate conclusion of an argument will never itself support another part of the argument. The main point of the argument is not that the superconductor will allow energy to be transported farther will less energy lost, but that superconductors will lead to improved productivity.

Answer choice (D): Like in answer choice (C), this answer choice is incorrect as it confuses the conclusion for the premise.

Answer choice (E): The term “evidence” is another word for premise. Therefore, since it incorrectly identifies the conclusion as a premise, this answer choice is also incorrect.
 mN2mmvf
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: Jul 06, 2017
|
#38896
Hi, can you please explain a little more fully why (B) is not correct? I knew that superconductor development improving industrial productivity was the conclusion, but I thought that in (A) the claim that "shipping costs for fossil fuels are partly a function of the losses of material in transit" was offered as support not for the main conclusion, but for a subsidiary conclusion: that "a similar improvement resulted when oil and natural gas replaced coal as the primary fossil fuels used in North America."

Whereas, in B, transporting energy farther with less loss seemed like just a single example of the ways in which superconductor development would improve industrial productivity generally. I had no objection to the word "generalization" because there could be many different ways that productivity increases.
 nicholaspavic
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 271
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
|
#39309
Hi nM2,

Good question.

I have to disagree that "shipping costs for fossil fuels are partly a function of the losses of material in transit" does not directly support the conclusion that superconductor development will probably improve industrial productivity. But also, please consider that although there could be many different ways that productivity increases, this is not a viewpoint that the author directly tells us and that's also why it's not a generalization. The author is making a very specific point about superconductors and the way that it is analagous to the oil replacing coal situation. Therefore, this is not a blanket statement that can properly be characterized as a "generalization.

Thanks and I hope this helps! :-D

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.