to the top

#12- If future improvements to computer simulations of

Administrator
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 6578
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Points: 3,250

Please post below with any questions!
arodvang
LSAT Novice
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:08 am
Points: 1

Hi there,

I am wondering if someone can explain why A is right and B is wrong? I thought they both strengthened the argument, but went with B. I can see why A is correct, but don't understand how B can be completely wrong.

Thank you!
kennypark17
LSAT Novice
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:19 pm
Points: 4

arodvang wrote:Hi there,

I am wondering if someone can explain why A is right and B is wrong? I thought they both strengthened the argument, but went with B. I can see why A is correct, but don't understand how B can be completely wrong.

Thank you!


Is it that "highly likely" is weaker than the fact that "actual test crashes provide little information of importance?" Let me know if I'm off the mark!
James Finch
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:06 pm
Points: 600

Hi Kenny and Arodvang,

This question is tough because it asks us to strengthen a conditional statement, a rarely tested issue. To do that, we have to make the sufficient condition the only thing that matters (or at least make it more likely that it's the only thing that matters) to the necessary condition.

The issue with answer choice (B) is that it addresses an issue that is already addressed by the stimulus, which is how much safety information is gained by simulation vs. actual test crashes. Since we know that once that reaches 1:1, there will be far fewer actual crashes done (simulations taking their place), it doesn't matter whether the simulations will ultimately give more information than the actual crashes.

Instead, answer choice (A) gives us the crucial element we need, that practically the only information that is gained from the crash tests is about car safety, which the simulations will do equally well and at lower cost. This would make it a no-brainer to drop actual crash tests and move over to simulations, giving us the certainty that a conditional relationship requires.

Hope this clears things up!
chian9010
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:02 pm
Points: 80

I think because this is a conditional statement (starting with "if future improvements..."), the only way to strengthen the statement is to make sure the condition will truly happen such that in the future, it is indeed possible to enable computers to provide reliable info and use it to simulate crash.

Therefore, I chose answer choice E because this is the only answer that strength our confidence on this statement or make the conditional statement more convincing that it will happen.

I have A and B in my contender but I still don't really understand why A is the correct answer.
Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:01 pm
Points: 2,291

There is more to strengthening a conditional claim than just showing that the sufficient condition will happen, chian9010. You have to also show that when that sufficient condition happens, the necessary condition does! To strengthen this argument, we need more evidence that the industry will, in fact, do fewer test crashes. Now here is where it gets really interesting - this stimulus combines elements of conditional reasoning with causal reasoning! The cause of fewer test crashes is the financial information, that crashes are more expensive than simulations. To strengthen fewer test crashes, eliminate other causes for doing them, like some other benefit of test crashes. That is what answer A is doing - eliminating other causes for choosing the more expensive option! There is no other benefit besides the safety info.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam