#18- People who have political power tend to see new

[voodoochild]

About this argument, I thought that :

Premise #1 - People who have political power => think new tech is good for their power

Premise #2 - People who have political power => think/see ethical arguments as bad.

Conclusion #1a = technical ingenuity brings benefits to THOSE WHO HAVE THIS INGENUITY

Conclusion #1b = ethical Inventiveness brings only paid to THOSE WHO have this inventiveness.

In other words, I thought that the argument is saying that by connecting elements in premise and conclusion, the politicians get benefited because they THEMSELVES can extend their power ( politicians are those who possess technical ingenuity). Similarly, Element is bad because this connection brings bad stuff to the politicians ( politicians are those who possess ethical inventiveness). HEnce, they are inclined to not use it. Hence, I thought that E) is a good answer choice, because a greater number of politicians would be inclined to not use ethical inventiveness.


Thoughts? I am a bit lost Please help.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey voodoo, good question, and I see where it can cause some confusion. You're looking at the individuals involved here as being a single group - the politically powerful also being ones with technical ingenuity - but I don't think that's warranted. Rather, we're looking for a way to link those two groups together, which answer choice B does for us.

First, we have multi-conditional premise (rather than looking at it as two premises, let's put them together). The first sentence can be diagrammed something like this: PP (Politically Powerful) -> NTEP (New Tech Extends Power) + EITP (Ethical Ideas Threaten Power). The author then concludes that those with technical ingenuity (the ones presumably bringing about New Tech) get benefits (NT -> Ben) and those with ethical inventiveness (the ones presumably with the Ethical ideas) get pain (EI -> P).

In a strengthen question we need to focus on the conclusion and make it more likely. To strenghten the double conclusion that NT -> Ben and EI -> P, we want an answer that further links the PP to those idea of Benefit and Pain. Answer choice B gives us that additional link - if PP give rewards (benefits) to those that provide something useful, and if New Tech is useful in that it extends power, then we have a stronger basis for making the conclusion that NT -> Ben. The same flow of information applies to the other half of the conclusion - if PP punish (give pain to) those who threaten their power (like those folks with EI), the conclusion that EI -> Pain is strengthened.

Answer choice E is a little backwards. We might conclude that if EI leads to pain, then those with EI have a motivation to hide themselves, but E tries to do the opposite by suggesting that EI hiding themselves somehow strengthens the argument that they are subjected to pain or punishment. If it helps at all, it only helps a little, more by implying a motive than be directly impacting the conclusion. Also, E does nothing to address the other half of the conclusion - that the NT folks get benefits. B does a better job by addressing both parts of the conclusion and making them both more directly tied to the PP, rather than just implying a possible motive.

I hope that helped!

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[voodoochild]

You're looking at the individuals involved here as being a single group - the politically powerful also being ones with technical ingenuity - but I don't think that's warranted. Rather, we're looking for a way to link those two groups together, which answer choice B does for us.

Adam,
Thanks for your detailed response. I am not sure why you wrote that "I don't think that's warranted." I missed this question because I inferred a completely different meaning than that written by you. Is there any language clue, using which you thought that the two entities (PP and Tech Ing)are different?

I am really curious.

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

I'd say that there's nothing in the stimulus to suggest that the two groups are the same or that they overlap. The author talks about those with political power, and he talks about those with technical ingenuity and also about those with ethical inventiveness. Unless there is language in the stimulus that tells you that they overlap (such as "some people with political power are ethically inventive" or "among those who have technical ingenuity, those with political power..."), we shouldn't assume that they do. To do so requires a mental leap on our part that isn't required to parse through this argument.

That doesn't mean that they cannot overlap, though - assuming that they don't overlap is also unwarranted. It may be that there are politically powerful people who also have technical ingenuity. Perhaps, with a different stimulus and answer choices, the possibility of overlap might be the key. The point is that we have no reason to make either of those assumptions, so we look for what we can do to address the stem and find an answer that strengthens the conclusion by making the link between the premises and that conclusion.

Adam

[voodoochild]

Thank you Adam for your detailed response. This is crystal clear now! thanks again.

[mab2013]

I honestly think the explanation given above is not adequate for why E is wrong. Yes, there is no doubt that B is better, but the fact that E addressed one side of the problem does not mean that it doesnt strengthen the argument. Second, your explanation of how the logic in E is reversed doesnt make alot of sense because the logic works the same way in E. EI lead to pain. Can we get a more detailed explanation for E.

[Steve Stein]

I honestly think the explanation given above is not adequate for why E is wrong. Yes, there is no doubt that B is better, but the fact that E addressed one side of the problem does not mean that it doesnt strengthen the argument. Second, your explanation of how the logic in E is reversed doesnt make alot of sense because the logic works the same way in E. EI lead to pain. Can we get a more detailed explanation for E.

Hi,

In that one,the author says that the powerful tend to see technical innovations as helping their power, and new ethical arguments as a threat. The author concludes that being technologically innovative will usually be beneficial, while being ethically inventive will "bring only pain."

The answer asks for the choice that strengthens this argument, so the right answer choice will be the one that supports either the notion that being technologically innovative will be beneficial, or the notion that being ethically inventive will bring pain, or both, based on the way that the powerful view the different types of innovation.

Answer choice (E) provides that many who are ethically inventive conceal this fact, making such inventiveness less likely to bring pain, or have any ramifications. That would actually weaken the argument of the author, who concludes that such inventiveness is sure to bring pain since the powerful don't like it.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[mab2013]

Yes that is a much better explanation. I can see now how this possibly would weaken the argument. Thanks you for your help and your speedy response.

[LSAT2018]

Would this be considered a chain of causal events such as the one below?
Political Power → Technologies as a Means of Extending Power → Benefits to Those who Bring Ingenuity
Political Power → Ethical Arguments as Threat → Pain to Those who Invent Ideas

[Adam Tyson]

I think the argument could be analyzed that way, LSAT2018, although I don't see the first two claims in the stimulus as causal but merely correlative. The conclusion is certainly causal, as is the correct answer, so a causal approach is justified.