#26 - When the manufacturers in a given country are slower

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there, mood.iqra, thanks for the question and welcome to the forum!

For the contrapositive of the chain in this stimulus, scroll up to Steve's explanation from a few years back - he has it all charted out. Also, read what Jon had to say here about using logical opposition to create those contrapositive statements - we don't have to say "faster" to negate "slower", we just have to say "not slower" (which allows for a tie - two countries could adopt new technologies at the same rate and thus neither would be slower than the other).

Answer B, as explained in the original post in this thread, is a Mistaken Reversal of a portion of our conditional chain. We know that if a country adopts new tech more slowly than a competitor (which is the same as saying the competitor country does so faster) then that country will be squeezed out of the market. That links the first sufficient condition in the chain to the last necessary condition. Answer B puts those two statements in reverse order without negating them - if squeezed out, then slower to adopt new tech (competitor did it faster). We can't make those sort of backwards claims in conditional reasoning - we can only go in the original direction or else use the contrapositive where we both reverse the order AND negate the terms. If NOT squeezed out, then NOT slower to adopt new tech - that's a valid statement.

Answer C has the same problem - a necessary condition (prices lowered faster) is used to prove a sufficient condition (adopted new tech). Again, no going backwards without also negating!

Answer D is a Mistaken Negation. It tells us that when a sufficient condition (adopting new tech more slowly) does NOT happen (because they are moving at the same speed, neither is slower than the other), a necessary condition (squeezed out) also does NOT happen. We can't just negate the terms! To make a valid claim we would have to reverse AND negate. There could be other ways to squeeze out a competitor, so adopting tech at the same speed proves nothing.

Take another look using the diagrams already laid out in this thread, comparing those to your own, and see if they make sense now. Remember to use logical opposition - if a country is moving at the same speed as another then it is NOT moving more slowly.

Good luck, and come back here with more questions as they come up!

[mankariousc]

Hello!

I was really thrown off by the "more slowly" and "less rapidly" part of the stimulus. For the original diagram we assumed those are the same things right?

Also, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding A, D, and E. Could you help me in diagramming them?

Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Mankariousc,

Yes, "more slowly" and "less rapidly" are synonymous.

Just going to make my own quick and dirty diagram here for this question:

Slower to Adopt Technologies = SAT
Production Costs Fall Slower = PCFS
Slower to Reduce Prices = SRP
Out of Global Market = OGM

SAT PCFC SRP OGM

Now to the answer choices you highlighted:

Answer Choice (A): There is no diagramming here. It completely leaves the world of conditionals and enters the twilight zone of causality. Notice the word "because." Also everything about prices in the stimulus is comparative. This answer choice makes an absolute statement about raising prices without respect to what anyone else is doing. There is absolutely nothing we can do with this answer.

Answer Choice (D): Here you have to translate the information in the answer choice into a format that is compatible with your initial diagram. "Manufacturers adopting technologies at same rate as foreign competitors" for our purposes is equivalent to NOT Slower to Adopt Technologies, or SAT. Here we have negated a sufficient condition, but commit a Mistaken Negation™ Error (Denying the Antecedent/Fallacy of the Inverse). Diagrammed it looks like this:

• *SAT OGM*

Answer Choice (E): This is the credited response. Here we're messing around with the contrapositive (my browser wants to autocorrect "contrapositive" into "contraceptive." Glad I caught that!) of our original conditional chain. "Manufacturers lowering prices as rapidly as foreign competitors" as above should be translated into NOT Slower to Reduce Prices, or SRP. "Adopt new technologies at least as fast as competitors" should be translated as NOT Slower to Adopt Technologies, or SAT. This answer choice makes the inference that:

• SRP SAT

This is a valid inference because if the SRP condition is false, then we have failed to meet a necessary condition for SAT. Put a different way, if manufacturers are NOT slower to reduce prices, then these manufacturers must NOT be slower to adopt technologies.

I hope this helps!

[persaudp1]

Just a general question:

Can all LR questions be diagrammed the way we did it for the 30 questions in this section? Diagramming doesn't seem necessary for some questions so I just want to make sure I am not committing a fatal flaw in sticking with this mentality.

Any advice would be great!

Thanks,
Priya

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Priya,

I’m not sure what 30 questions you are referring to. Let me know what you are looking at so I can give a more specific answer.

In general, knowing when to diagram is something that you will have to work while studying for the test. As you study and practice more of these questions, you will develop a better sense of when you need to diagram to understand the question Stimulus. If diagramming a particular statement is slowing you down without any upside, then don’t do it. Diagramming should help you understand the statement, so there is no need to do so on statements that you fully comprehend.

For a deeper analysis of this topic, check out Dave Killoran’s blog post here: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid/333 ... To-Diagram

[andriana.caban]

I notice that one of my major problems is creating variables to sort of map out the conditional statements. However, I end up confusing myself more. But, I don't have time to realisitically map out the words to make it less confusing. Basically, I write the correct information and the correct contrapositives, but end up forgetting what the variables mean and end up re-reading the stimulus like five times, confusing myself, and choosing the wrong answer. Any advice?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Andriana,

Knowing what sort of variables you have been using might help me give you better advice. In general, I find that stimulus that contain more than three terms that I want to diagram may make me forget what each variable means. In this case, I tend to write out short phrases for each term instead of acronyms.

For example, instead of writing out PCFMS for the phrase production costs fall more slowly, I would likely jot down the following: $ [down arrow] more slow. This doesn't take very much longer to write than an acronym, but is more likely to remind me of what the stimulus actually stated. If you do this, remember that you are not precisely recording out what the stimulus said, so you may still need to go back and verify what the literal wording was, but it will nevertheless likely provide a better reminder of the rule than a 5 letter acronym will.

[lathlee]

Hi. I always have E and C as the final contender for whenever i solved these questions. I fail to see how C is mistaken negation. thx . can you plz help me?

[Adam Tyson]

Here's the original explanation in this thread, lathlee:

Slower to Adopt Technology → Production costs fall more slowly

Production costs fall more slowly → Unable to lower prices as rapidly

Unable to lower prices as rapidly → Squeezed out of market.

You should infer that if a country’s manufacturers are slower than are other countries’ to adopt new technology, that country will be squeezed out of the global market. The contra positive also follows: if a country is still in the global market, its companies have been adopting new technology as quickly as those of other nations.

Now, here's what answer choice C is saying:

Production costs fall more slowly Competitors Adopted New Tech

It's not exactly a mistaken negation, because saying that the competition adopted new tech is not the same as saying this country adopted tech more slowly. But it's a close cousin to a mistaken negation, assuming that costs falling more slowly tells us something about new technology, when in fact it tells us nothing about that.

More accurately, the problem with C is that it brings up something new, the idea of the competition adopting new tech without reference to the relative speed of that adoption. Speed matters!

I hope that helps.

[lety.gordill@gmail.com]

Would it be possible to see the diagramming of the answer choices. I am struggling with the mistake in reversal. Thank you!