#10 - The Industrial Revolution decreased the value that society conferred

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[ihenson]

Could someone help understand why it's D over B?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi ihenson!

The conclusion of this stimulus is: "Clearly, our most important intellectual skills will similarly be devalued by electronic data-processing technology." In support of this, the author indicates that certain computational tasks that once took skilled mathematicians a long time can now be done rather quickly by high schoolers with a computer.

Answer choice (D) calls the relevance of this example into question. This example might show what is true for certain computational tasks. However, if "our most important intellectual skills" are not in fact computational tasks, then the conclusion doesn't clearly follow from the premises.

If anything, answer choice (B) seems to strengthen or do nothing to the argument rather than weaken it. Answer choice (B) reinforces that mathematical computation was a matter of skill and technique. It also seems to reinforce that electronic data-processing technology has changed this.

[stantheman666]

Hi,

When assuming "our most important intellectual skills" = "the intellectual skills that society values the most highly in the sense the latter refers to the former, the conclusion in the stimulus says the intellectual skills are the most important (society values the most highly), while D says it is not, a direct contradiction. Does it mean in LSAT answer choice of question type Weaken, Strengthen where outside information extraneous to the stimulus can be introduced, the new information can be either information that adds to the stimulus (but recognizes stimulus as 100% true) only or information that contradicts the stimulus? Thank you.

[stantheman666]

Also, why E is wrong please? If electronic data processing tech opens up new tasks people couldn't do before, would it imply there is no devalue? Maybe because there is still devaluation because their old jobs were replaced and the opening up of new ones do not compensate to the devaluation?

[Adam Tyson]

E is a wrong answer, Stan, because it has no bearing on the conclusion about intellectual skills. The author wants us to believe that our most important intellectual skills will be devalued, but they haven't given any evidence about intellectual skills. instead, their evidence is about computational skills.

Since the author spoke only of computational skills in their premises, they must have assumed that computational skills are among our most important intellectual skills. Otherwise, how did they make the leap from that evidence to their conclusion?

To weaken the argument, then, we need to deny that assumption and say that computational skills are not among our most important intellectual skills, as answer D does. In fact, all of the wrong answers are wrong because they fail to say anything about intellectual skills!

[stantheman666]

Hi Adam,

Thank you for addressing my second question. Why E is wrong is crystal clear.

Would you mind clarifying the first question: are we allowed to bring in information that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS a premise in the stimulus?

It seems ok here because the stimulus said intellectual skills are most important/valuable ("our most important intellectual skills") while the extraneous information brought in by answer choice D DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the stimulus by saying no, stimulus, you are wrong, the information I am bringing in ("The intellectual skills the society values most highly are not computational ones").

I just realized by this far that a direct contradiction of stimulus like this is allowed because it contradicts the CONCLUSION, not a premise.

My understanding remains that contracting the PREMISES of stimulus with extraneous information is NOT allowed, even in questions like Weaken or Strengthen, where information new to stimulus is allowed. This question is important because it is about ALL LSAT questions.

What is your opinion on this? Please share it. I appreciate any sharing. Thank you.

[stantheman666]

Typos: "My understanding remains that CONTRADICTS the PREMISES of stimulus.."

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Stan,

The short answer is that yes, a Weaken answer choice can directly contradict a premise in the argument. The information in the stimulus is suspect or in question for a Weaken question, so you are not accepting that information as true. Instead, each answer is accepted as true, even if it brings in so-called new, or outside information.

This of course is completely different than Must Be True and other "Prove" Family questions, in which the information in the stimulus is accepted as true.

However, even though is it acceptable for an answer choice to directly contradict a premise for a Weaken question, the answers rarely do so because they would be too easy. Instead, Weaken answers often bring up other damaging information that shows how a premise may not be relevant to the conclusion without actually outright contradicting it or adds some other consideration to the argument.

Lastly, it wouldn't make sense for a Strengthen answer to contradict a premise of an argument, since premises by definition support the conclusion, and arguments that have contradictory premises are inherently flawed, having a flaw called an internal (or self) contradiction. A Strengthen answer can add to a premise or be stronger than a premise, but not directly contradict it.