#6 - The most successful economies have been, and will

[uhinberg]

I am unsatisfied with the response to MBT. The stimulus says that the credited answer can be properly inferred. You cannot property infer that Europe needs to train more people in NT to be economically more successful. You can infer only that they need to do so to become one of the most successful economies.

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi uhinberg,

That's a very close reading, and I think you understand this: We know that Europe is not one of the most successful economies because of its shortage of skilled labor. Only training people in NT will allow them to be one of the most successful economies.

Your point is that it might be possible to improve the economy without becoming one of the most successful economies and the stimulus only tells us what it takes to be the most successful. I think you have a valid point in the most technical sense, however, the stimulus very strongly implies that NT is the only way to improve the economy and the other answers aren't nearly has strong.

[whardy21]

I was between C and D on this one and chose C. I thought D was half correct. Looking back at the stimulus, it says Europe has a shortage of skilled labor trained to use the new technologies and there are not enough scientist to develop and apply the technologies. I guess I didn't want to jump to the fact that because Europe trains more people to become skilled laborers that they are going to have more people skilled in labor to apply and develeop the new technoligies. Are you saying the more people they hire in skilled labor the more they skilled laborers they have to apply and develop the technology? Please let me know.

[Adam Tyson]

I see several problems with answer C here, whardy21. Let me see if I can convince you to hate it!

1. There is no evidence in the stimulus that Japan's economy is successful, just that it's training effort is one that is the sort that is needed to become the most successful. In other words, they are doing the right thing, but we have no reason to believe they have succeeded yet. Answer C assumes that success, and a Must Be True answer should assume nothing.

2. The stimulus tells us nothing about whether Japan's labor base is "uncommonly" narrow. Maybe it's very common worldwide to have that distribution of highly skilled labor compared to low-skilled workers? Perhaps most of the world is exactly the same way? Answer C assumes that they are rare, rather than common, and again, the right answer should assume nothing.

3. Answer C is broadly about "highly skilled labor", but fails to specify that we are talking about being skilled at "new technologies". Perhaps Japan has a huge supply of people who are highly skilled, but just not at the new tech. Like, they have incredibly skilled craftsmen, blacksmiths, automotive mechanics specializing in 1960's-era internal combustion engines, and the very best dog trainers in the world? There could be a massive supply of people who are "highly skilled" at all the wrong stuff.

I hate answer C with a fiery passion! It's filled with nasty, stinking new information that must be rejected in a Must Be True scenario! I hope by now you can smell its awful stench, too.

Now, I don't love answer D, for the same reasons already mentioned in this thread, and I think for the same reason you called it "half correct." My prephrase was "European economies are not as successful as they could be". Answer D isn't perfect, but it doesn't reek nearly so much as answer C does. It's the best of the bunch, which is all we are supposed to be looking for anyway, so I'll take it and hold my nose a little if I have to.

I hope my response was not only pungent, but cogent! Enjoy!

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

If this were an assumption question, would (C) be correct?

If Japan had a shortage of technically qualified people and a surplus of workers who can only do menial tasks but they still have the 'most successful economy' then wouldn't the author have to assume that Japan's definition of qualified people is not the same as Europe's.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Andriana!

This stimulus does not contain and argument and, therefore, the author has not made any assumptions. Instead, the author simply presents us with facts, but does not use those facts to support a conclusion. You cannot have an assumption question for a fact set.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[KwakuS]

Hello all,

Thank you for all of your responses. I am unfortunately, however, still very confused. The question starts out by saying that the most successful countries develop and train people in the right fields. It goes on to state that Japan follows this model. So I assume Japan is a successful country (I hope that is a safe assumption, or else I need some help). Then we see that Europe is weak because they haven't developed enough people in the right sectors. That makes sense to me. But then the question says that Japan has a shortage of technically qualified people and like Europe, has far too many people to perform menial tasks. So then, I'm thinking "Ok, so Japan has the weaknesses of Europe, but it is still strong."

Wait...ok, hold on. So I guess I see how Japan maybe doesn't "depend" on an uncommonly narrow base of highly skilled labor, maybe does well in spite of that. But at the same time, it has a shortage of qualified people and is still successful. Couldn't you say that it depends on that narrow base? And with Europe. We know that they don't have enough people to be successful which is why they're struggling. Is it similar to a mistaken reversal to say that if they train more people they will be more successful? That makes perfect sense to me, but I'm always on guard of making those kinds of assumptions with a test like this.

Thanks,
Kwaku

[Adam Tyson]

"Most successful" is a relative term, Kwaku, and you should not assume that being the most successful means that it is, in fact, successful. Imagine a global recession, where everyone is doing terribly, but one country, maybe Japan, is doing better than the others. They could be the most successful relative to everyone else but not actually be successful in an absolute sense. So no, you should not have made that assumption.

For other problems with answer C and its claim about an "uncommonly narrow" base of skilled workers, see my explanation earlier in this thread. There is no evidence at all to support this claim!

[timmer]

I freely admit that there is a lot of work on this page, to include good analysis as to why C and D are both not correct inferences but instead are MSS answers, when the question stem is an inference, something you know, for a fact, something that is provably true.

1) I have the wrong definition for inference.
2) This is a bad LSAT question and either was thrown out or should be thrown out.
3) Someone is going to massively shake my world view, and swoop down with a fiery sword of wrath to destroy this problem and prove D is true, when it hasn't been proven true in like 20 years.

To be clear I'm down for fire swords, but if you try to poke holes in C, I will poke holes in D, and then we can just point fingers at each other and prove nothing. While I personally think the assumption gap in D is smaller than C, I mostly want to just agree that this is a shit question and we can throw it out. IF it is in fact a good question, then what is to be learned from it? That Inferences don't' have to be provably true? That you should read for author tone in a LR question? I'm pretty sure we can all agree that is bunk.

Cheers

[Catallus]

I did pick (D), but doesn't this answer choice confuse sufficiency for necessity? (D) sets out training in new technologies as a necessary condition for economic improvement, but this can't be properly inferred from the stimulus. For all we know, Europe might be able to become more economically successful—albeit not the most successful—by addressing other shortcomings in its educational system, imposing or lifting trade tariffs, boosting tourism, etc. There's really no way to "properly infer[]" that training is a necessary condition for any economic improvement.