#16 - Engineer: Thermophotovoltaic generators are devices

[moshei24]

Are you trying to say that my main question isn't necessary for this question? That whether or not the generator would convert the heat into electricity, always, is only necessary if we're talking about a case where the passage says that it would, not that it could? Am I being clear with my question?

But either way, could you answer my main question if it were in a different context? Do I make sense here with what I'm asking or should I clarify?

[moshei24]

My point is that the stimulus says that if they could feed the heat into the generators, the would reduce electric bills and save money.

So, if it wouldn't be possible for the generators to convert it into electricity like the they're supposed to, it wouldn't work. My question is if that is assumed because it says earlier in the stimulus that it does that.

Though, does the fact that (B) says "using current technology" make that not important? Because even if current technology wouldn't allow the generators to work as they're supposed to, it still wouldn't matter?

[Jason Crandall]

Example conclusion: "If humans could fly, it would really cut down on how many parking lots we need."

Unnecessary assumption (similar to answer B): "Using currently technology, humans can fly."

Negation: "Humans cannot fly with current technology."

I can still believe in the example conclusion even if humans can't currently fly because I can still believe that IF humans could fly, we wouldn't need as many parking lots.

Similarly, because the author includes the word "if", the author does not have to believe that transforming excess heat from steel manufacturing plants is possible with current technology. If it were shown to be currently impossible, then author could still maintain that the technology would be effective if it were possible.

Without the qualifying phrase, "if steel manufacturing plants could feed the heat they produce", the author would have to assume that the process is currently at least partially effective. With that qualifier, the author can simply be talking about a useful concept that is not necessarily feasible.

Furthermore, the stimulus never says that steel manufacturing plants can do this. It says that HPV generators transform heat into electricity, but it does not specify that all kinds of heat can be harnessed this way. The first sentence does not address steel manufacturing and it is inappropriate to interpret this sentence as suggesting that all heat, from all sources, anywhere, can currently be transformed into electricity through HPVs.

Hope that helps.

[moshei24]

Okay, thank you, Jason.

If you take "using current technology" out of (B) that answer becomes a necessary assumption, correct?

[Jason Crandall]

Closer, definitely, although the author could still be wistfully imagining something that could never be possible (e.g., Author: "If humans could have wings...", Opponent: "But human can't have wings.", Author: "I know, but if they could...").

Since the conclusion could be read in this manner, the phrase "using current technology" is a helpful but not essential in determining that the assumption is not required.

Glad I could clear this up for you!

[moshei24]

Aha, it would need to say, "it COULD..." for it to be a required assumption. "Would" refers to now? And for that reason, it's not a required assumption?


By the way, if you want to see one of the most fluffed up questions I've ever seen on an LSAT (and I've seen almost every question PowerScore has posted), take a look at the last section on this LSAT, and look at #25. For starters, it's a hard question because it uses "without" as it's conditional indicator, and then it has an extra premise that is completely unimportant to answering the question, and instead confuses most test takers. It's a fun one. Give it a look.

[Jason Crandall]

That's it

Thanks for suggesting that question to me; I'll give it a look.

[moshei24]

Thanks!

Enjoy it! It's a fun one, and it's purely mechanical.

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

I am having a hard time understanding this question. So this is asking for a necessary assumption.

I diagrammed this as: steeling manufacturing plants feed heat in thermo gen. would greatly reduce their electric bills thereby saving money.
(+) would not greatly reduce electric bills steel manufacturing plants could not feed heat in therm gens.

the thereby saving money part is throwing me off, how does this figure into the conditional sequence, I'm assuming at the end so would it be an and? Im not really understanding this question.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

That is a confusing conditional claim, Sarah, and I read it as a combination of conditional and causal language. The conditional is something like "Feed the heat into the thing -> reduce electric bill." The "could" and "would" parts aren't essential parts of the conditional claim, in my analysis, but instead they indicate that this conditional claim is merely speculative rather than currently certain. The contrapositive would be "Not reduce electric bills -> could not feed the heat into the thing".

The next part appears causal to me - the necessary condition of reducing the bills is purported to cause savings. The assumptions built into a causal argument are like strengthen answers - the author assumes there is no alternate cause, assumes that when the cause happens the effect happens, etc. That's where answer C comes into play, in my opinion - it's an assumption that when the cause (reduced bills) happens, the effect (savings) also happens. The negation of that answer would be along the lines of saying that the cause might be present with the effect absent - reduced bills but no overall savings.

Others may look at that second relationship as continuing a conditional chain, and I can understand that approach. We get the first conditional claim as outlined above, and then we get a new claim about saving money that is not part of the conditional chain. The assumption would fill in that gap for us by saying that reduced bills are sufficient to prove savings. The analysis of the negation of answer C, then, would be to say that when the alleged sufficient condition (reduced bills) is present, the supposed necessary condition (savings) may not be - in other words, it isn't really necessary.

Whether you look at this conditionally or causally, it all comes down to filling in the gap between reduced bills and overall savings. That's where your assumption will come into play.

I hope that helped clear things up!