#11 - If the needle on an industrial sewing machine becomes

[akalsi]

Hi,

Originally I had chosen answer A because it seemed like in the stimulus they were talking about two different types of factories: the traditional apparel factories and the automated apparel factories. I understood from the stimulus that in the automated apparel factories that the device that was to be implemented will allow them to monitor the needles efficiently. So from this I though that A made the most sense because the needles in the automated apparel factories will be ruin items less frequently due to the implementation of the new device as compared to the traditional factories. I don't quite understand where I went wrong in this question and why answer D is right over answer A

Could you please clarify where I have made a mistake? Did I make an unwarranted assumption?

Thanks,
Anoop

[David Boyle]

Hi,

Originally I had chosen answer A because it seemed like in the stimulus they were talking about two different types of factories: the traditional apparel factories and the automated apparel factories. I understood from the stimulus that in the automated apparel factories that the device that was to be implemented will allow them to monitor the needles efficiently. So from this I though that A made the most sense because the needles in the automated apparel factories will be ruin items less frequently due to the implementation of the new device as compared to the traditional factories. I don't quite understand where I went wrong in this question and why answer D is right over answer A

Could you please clarify where I have made a mistake? Did I make an unwarranted assumption?

Thanks,
Anoop

Hello Anoop,

Answer D reflects the common-sense reality that monitors probably wouldn't be needed if you could predict when needles wore out. As for answer A, you may indeed have made an unwarranted assumption, since we don't know for sure that automated factories'll be better for needles than traditional factories would.

Hope this helps,
David

[kelia16]

LR game type training ( MBT 86) , May I know why D is correct out of all the others ?

[James Finch]

Hi Kelia,

This is a very difficult question that requires a two-step inference from what the stimulus gives us. So let's go through the stimulus and see what is there.

The first sentence gives us a conditional statement that ends up being a red herring; we only need to know that apparel factories need to keep their needles from becoming badly worn, as the rest of the stimulus does not use conditional reasoning.

Then we are given that the operator of the sewing machine is the one traditionally tasked with monitoring the wear on the needle. But automation is occurring, and those operators are being replaced with robots. Since it doesn't make sense to keep workers on staff only to monitor the needles, an acoustic monitoring device will become the standard way to monitor needle wear in the future.

This is another difficult question to Prephrase, as it's a Must Be True type that seems to be a complete argument within the stimulus. So let's delve into the answer choices:

(A) simply isn't supported by the stimulus. No mention of the effectiveness of either workers or the acoustic machine is ever mentioned, the only argument made for replacing workers with the device is an economic one.

(B) relies on making a false inference based on misreading the third sentence. We only know that it isn't economically efficient to employ workers whose only job is to monitor needles, not that all automated factories' workers will only have one type of task.

(C) is an Opposite answer, the exact opposite of an inference we can draw from the stimulus. The third sentence mentions that apparel factories are becoming "
increasingly automated," implying that the ones hat exist now already are automated to some extent.

(D) is initially off-putting, as nowhere in the stimulus is the rate of needles wearing out mentioned. However, when we think through the need for monitoring of the needles, this answer makes sense: if the needles don't wear out an unpredictable rate, no monitoring would be needed, as the factories would simply replace the needles on a predictable schedule. So this answer choice is supported by the stimulus.

(E) This is an attractive wrong answer, as the new monitoring machines are "acoustic devices," which implies that they are using sound to monitor the wear on the needles. The problem is that we don't whether the needles get louder or less loud as they wear out, so this answer choice isn't ultimately supportable.

Hope this helps!

[whardy21]

I was between C and D on this question and chose D. I understand the logical choice for D. I chose B because of sentence 2. It states people who operate the machines monitor the needles and replace those that begin to wear out. I concluded C was correct from that statement. However, when we apply the fact test, C is. not sufficient as well. I know that people monitor and replace the needles that begin to wear out, but I have nothing in the stimulus to conclude that traditional factories do not use automated equipment. Applying the fact test on this questions was very difficult. Please Help. Thanks

[James Finch]

Hi W. Hardy,

This is a very difficult question, so don't feel bad that applying the Fact Test is tough here. The way I read the stimulus was that it implied that traditional apparel factories were already somewhat automated; simply using machines is a degree of automation above hand-sewing garments. So (C) can be ruled out on that basis, or at the very least on the basis that there is nothing that would lead us to believe that they lacked any automation whatsoever. (D) operates very much like a Defender assumption; without (D) being true, the entire argument makes no sense, as there would be no need for monitoring. The needles would simply be replaced by on a schedule, as their wear would be predictable and thus knowledge of when to replace them would be as well.

Hope this clears things up!

[ericsilvagomez]

Hi,

The explanation below for answer choice D confuses me. Although it mentions that the stimulus does not explain the rate of the needles wearing out, it brings up the need for a device to monitor them. Wouldn't that also explain why there were people initially monitoring them? Would an automated machine improve the performance?

[Robert Carroll]

ericsilvagomez,

Answer choice (D) is equally consistent with people or machine monitoring. If the needles wear out at a predictable rate, there is no need for monitoring of any kind, whether by people or by a machine. Thus, the stimulus proves that the rate of wear must be unpredictable in its rate, necessitating some kind of monitoring.

I'm not sure whether machine monitoring would be better than human monitoring, but in either case, neither type of monitoring is useful at all unless the rate of wearing out is unpredictable.

Robert Carroll