#15 - Columnist: Shortsighted motorists learn the hard way

[Steven Palmer]

Hi jrafert,

What you're saying is true for some LSAT questions, like must be true's, but not for weaken. In weaken questions, we trust the Answer Choices and are suspicious of the stimulus. So I'm completely allowed to use new information in a weaken question, I just need to see if said information weakens the conclusion.

In this case, even though it's new information in choice (B), we don't care because the question stem asks us, "which of the following, if true, weakens the columnist's argument?"

Hope this helps!
Steven

[isoifer]

So this might seem like a stretch, and stretches seem to be no-go's in the LSAT world. But I chose A because since the author was so confident in this analogy, I became confident in it too. I believed that if for whatever reason the long-term economic development plan required "costly repairs," as in perhaps it did not make up for the potential costs that might outweigh the gains, then it would be akin to a car requiring costly repairs that might make the preventative auto maintenance not worth it. Does that make sense? I can see now why B is correct, but for some reason this was my pattern of thinking during the practice test.

[Adam Tyson]

You shouldn't be confident in the analogy, isoifer, but should always question whether an analogy is valid. If the two things being considered are sufficiently alike, then the analogy is useful; if they are different in some crucial way, then the analogy is not useful and the argument based upon it falls apart.

In this case, the author made TWO analogies, comparing this city's planners to wise car owners, and also comparing this city to other cities that did something similar. Which of the two did the author rely upon in his conclusion? The second one! The car analogy was just "fluff" in this argument, not essential in any way to what he was trying to prove. Once we recognize that the car analogy wasn't important (other than, perhaps, to make this speech more engaging, to make the average listener feel a connection to an otherwise dull topic), we can focus our attack on undermining the analogy that did matter and suggest that this city is different from the others in some important way.

Don't be too hasty to believe that a comparison is valid just because the author believes it! Analogies are a prime source of weakness in arguments that use them!

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore Staff,

I chose answer E for this question, largely because I thought that "few" in the answer choice was longer than "several," which is colloquially true (I believe). I thought thus, if it too a few years (say 5), that was more that the "several" announced in the stimulus, and that the slight distinction did in fact weaken the conclusion (should be praised for hiring the guy because there will be a big payoff in several years). If it is longer, isn't that a weaken answer?

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

I don't think there is any common agreement that "few" means more than "several", deck, so that appears to be where you went awry here. They can both just mean a small number. Several means more than two but not many, and it can just mean some unspecified number. Few is a relative term, but means "not many". They are both very subjective, but given the context of this argument I would interpret the claim that there will be a big payoff in several years to just mean "in the future". This argument is really about "the long run", however long that is, and the evidence that this city has done the right thing is that other cities did it and got benefits. It doesn't matter that there were no returns in the first few years, because they eventually got those returns, and the author thinks that means his city will, too. But what if this city isn't like those other cities? That's the real problem, and that's at the heart of the correct answer, B.

[akanshalsat]

Okay, so I'm not sure why, (maybe bc of the time constraints) but I just couldn't understand this stimulus? Like how does the first part relate to the later part. The first part is talking about auto maintenance (cars) but the latter part of the stimulus isn't?? I'm just not sure what they're talking about.. cars or investments? what is it saying?

(sorry this might be a completely stupid question)

And how does B fit in with this?

[Jay Donnell]

Hi akanshalsat!

You're not crazy to be lost by this stimulus, as the author begins by using an analogy which, at least in subject matter, is totally different to the substance of the argument.

The analogy connects through reasoning more than subject matter, as parallel arguments should. The point of referencing cars is that it often pays off to spend money on preventative auto maintenance For example, it's likely smarter to invest in at least some of those fluids and services offered as 'up-sells' when you go in for an oil change, as the money you spend then is likely to be way less than you'd spend if/when the engine completely falls apart later.

The author uses that mindset to move toward the subject at hand, and subsequently leaves all car talk behind. Then the argument really begins to take shape, and the flaw becomes evident. This argument falls victim to a comparison fallacy, in which the author argues that since this type of up-front investment has paid off in several other cities, it is likely to be just as successful for the city in question.

The problem then exists when you consider, are there any major differences between cities that could disrupt the implied connection between them and this city?

That is precisely where B comes in. In stating that the population and economy in this city is much smaller than the others, it offers reason to doubt whether the same strategy that worked in the other cities would have a similar effect in this one, thereby weakening the author's conclusion.

Hope that helps!

[ericau02]

Can you explain the argument a little more further,Im so confused I don't understand where the conclusion even is. or what is used as a comparison. I skipped this during my PT , but I am blind reviewing and am having trouble understanding the logic behind the stimulus.

[Jay Donnell]

Hi ericau02!

Happy to help, let's try and break this down as clearly as possible.

The argument is concluding about the positives behind hiring a long-term economic development advisor, and that conclusion is summarized in the two central sentences: "Our usually shortsighted city council should be praised for using similar wisdom when they hired a long-term economic development adviser. In hiring this adviser, the council made an investment that is likely to have a big payoff in several years." The term 'should' is indicative of the author's opinion, as is the predictive statement 'is likely to....in several years."

The reason why the author believes that this is a good move, despite the up-front costs involved with the initial investment, is that "other cities in this region that have devoted resources to economic development planning have earned large returns on such an investment."

The inherent comparison that defines the flaw of the argument is therefore between these 'other cities in this region' and the city in question. This assumed equivalence is where the correct response attacks, and in B we learn that there is a massive difference in population between the other cities and the one in question, which serves to weaken the argument by damaging that comparison.

The entire reference to motorists is merely an analogy to a situation in which spending money up front can help to save larger amounts of money in the big picture. For example, the money you spend on oil changes and all of those 'upgrades' at the oil change mechanic are up-front expenses, but likely end up being far cheaper than the amount you would have to pay in the end when your car fully breaks down as a result of being negligent in maintaining it.

I hope that helps to clear it up, please let me know what else I can do to shine a further light on this one!

[ericau02]

This actually helped a lot thanks so much !!!!