#17 - Columnist: Over the last 20 years the demand in North

[LAM]

I got this answer choice correct but just wanted to clarify that E is wrong because of a mistaken reversal correct? It switched the necessary and sufficient condition, right? It should read like this, "If North American manufacturers produce automobiles that more effectively meet the needs of Japanese buyers, then the automotive trade imbalance can be lessened." That's essentially what the argument states. I guess another reason it's incorrect as I ponder, is that, even if it were written correctly, it really isn't filling in any new info -it would just be restating the argument except for 'more effectively meeting needs' which you would have to assume means right-steering wheels. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Adam Tyson]

You're on the right track, LAM, but even if we were to flip that conditional claim around it would still be a loser answer. Why? Because nowehere in the stimulus do we have any indication that right-side steering wheels do anything to "meet the needs of Japanese buyers". Who said they need that, just because they drive on the left? Maybe it isn't about needs, but about wants? Don't assume any new, unnecessary information, LAM, like this whole "meet the needs" concept brought up in this answer choice. Instead, stick to what we know, which is only about which side the Japanese drive on and which side the steering wheels are on in the various cars being sold there.

Assumption answers can sometimes seem blindingly obvious, even "too simple to be right", but don't let that deter you, because obvious answers are very often assumptions of an argument. If I argue that Guardians of the Galaxy Part II will be a better movie than the original Guardians movie, I have to assume that Part II is, in fact, a movie, right? And I have to assume that there was, in fact, an original Guardians movie, too, don't I? Those both seem pretty obvious, but they are assumptions of my claim nonetheless. How do I know? Try negating them: Guardians Part II is a book, not a movie (so it cannot be a better movie); there was no "original" Guardians movie (so there is no way that Part II can be a better movie, because "better" requires a comparison to something).

Keep on building up your armor to protect that Achilles' heel of yours, and you'll be ready for battle with the LSAT soon. That Assumption breakthrough is right around the corner, I can feel it!

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

I got the question right but I wanted to ask why (D) is incorrect. If most Japanese would choose Japanese brand over American counterpart anyway, the obstacle wouldn't be removed right?

Thanks a lot!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Lilmiss,

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because the columnists isn't assuming that most would make that choice, but instead that more would that choice. So, that increase doesn't have to take the numbers over 50% (as required by most), and alternatively an increase such as from 5% to 25% would likely be more than enough to match what the columnist thinks.

It's a fine-line distinction, but consider that a word like most is pretty powerful,; does it have to be that the columnist is relying on over 50% of the Japanese consumers to act in this fashion?

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[lilmissunshine]

Thank you Dave! That's very helpful!

[lsatstudying11]

Hello!

I have a question about another potential issue here. I was wondering if another assumption relates to the idea that North American exporters are not producing enough right-side cars. I keyed into the phrase 'if NA manufacturers simply produce more cars' and thought to myself--what if they do reproduce enough right-side cars (maybe even too much) but the problem is that they just don't offer these right-side cars on the Japanese market but instead offer it in another markets, many of which might not even care for the right-side cars? So I am wondering if this might be another assumption here? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

That was my first prephrase, lsatstudying11! I thought "who says they aren't already doing that?" So yes, that would have been a good answer choice if they had offered it! However, I think the reason they didn't is because the stimulus does, to some extent, indicate that they are not offering cars with right-side drive, because it says that North American exporters are ignoring that aspect of Japanese driving. So it would be safe to say that the author didn't assume that, but rather stated it, albeit in an indirect way.