to the top

#23 - The workers at Bell Manufacturing will shortly go on

Administrator
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 6575
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Points: 3,248

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion—SN. The correct answer choice is (C)

The conclusion here is that some of Bell’s subsidiaries will be sold. This is said to follow from the idea that if there is no strike then management must have increased wages, as increased wages would require management to sell some of its subsidiaries:

    No Strike :arrow: Inc Wages :arrow: Sell Subs

To prove the end of the chain (sell subs), simply state that the beginning of the chain will occur (no strike).

Answer choice (A): This does not initiate the chain relationship shown above.

Answer choice (B): We want management to increase wages, as that would prove the conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As mentioned above, this would initiate the chain relationship described in the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): Just because the president has the authority to increase wages does not mean that it will happen.

Answer choice (E): Again, this does not show that the wage increase will occur, so it does not prove the conclusion.
wapet1
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:38 am
Points: 9

hi i have quick question! if there was an answer choice saying “wage would increase” would this be a correct answer as well?

thank you
Brook Miscoski
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:38 am
Points: 226

Wapet,

The second sentence establishes the following relationship:

Wages Increase :arrow: Sell Subsidiaries.

Therefore, if we were told that wages would increase, yes, we would know that Bell must sell some of its subsidiaries.

It would be odd for the choice not to incorporate the full conditional reasoning of the stimulus, but you are right that the conclusion would follow.

The LSAT test writers will not give you two correct choices, so if they gave you that choice, it would replace (C), the correct choice.
wapet1
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:38 am
Points: 9

Brook Miscoski wrote:Wapet,

The second sentence establishes the following relationship:

Wages Increase :arrow: Sell Subsidiaries.

Therefore, if we were told that wages would increase, yes, we would know that Bell must sell some of its subsidiaries.

It would be odd for the choice not to incorporate the full conditional reasoning of the stimulus, but you are right that the conclusion would follow.

The LSAT test writers will not give you two correct choices, so if they gave you that choice, it would replace (C), the correct choice.



thank you so much for the reply. :)
oli_oops
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:03 pm
Points: 26

Administrator wrote:Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion—SN. The correct answer choice is (C)

The conclusion here is that some of Bell’s subsidiaries will be sold. This is said to follow from the idea that if there is no strike then management must have increased wages, as increased wages would require management to sell some of its subsidiaries:

    No Strike :arrow: Inc Wages :arrow: Sell Subs

To prove the end of the chain (sell subs), simply state that the beginning of the chain will occur (no strike).

Answer choice (A): This does not initiate the chain relationship shown above.

Answer choice (B): We want management to increase wages, as that would prove the conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As mentioned above, this would initiate the chain relationship described in the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): Just because the president has the authority to increase wages does not mean that it will happen.

Answer choice (E): Again, this does not show that the wage increase will occur, so it does not prove the conclusion.



Hello!

Thank you for your simple and straightforward explanation, it helped a lot.
I'm just curious to know that is this a common form of Justify the Conclusion question? Or is it just me?
It is as simple as you explained it/as it is, however, I was very thrown off by the form.
Jay Donnell
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:04 pm
Points: 117

Hi Oli!

As far as Justify questions go, this one is just a little bit peculiar in that the missing assumption provided by the correct response was in the form of an absolute statement rather than a conditional one.

Very often, conditional-heavy Justify questions take one of the following standard forms:

1)
A --> B
( )
_______
A --> C

Answer provides missing link of: B --> C

2)

( )
B --> C
______
A --> C

Answer provides the missing link of: A --> B

3)

A --> B
( )
C --> D
______
A --> D

Answer provides the missing link of: B --> C

3)

A
( )
_______
B

Answer provides the missing link of: A --> B



This question however, ended up (after taking some contrapositives in the premises) looking like:

A --> B
B --> C
_______
C

This means that we need an absolute fact to activate the conditional premises, so really the correct response could have worked if it provided (A) or (B), as each fact could result in the guaranteeing of (C) in the conclusion.

In terms of this question's topic, the argument looks like this:

~S --> IW
IW --> SS
________
SS

So the answer could have provided (~S) aka "no strike" or (IW) aka "increased wages", as either would have guaranteed that Bell would be forced to (SS) aka sell some subsidiaries.


Not every Justify question matches one of the above structures, but the vast majority will, so I hope this helps give you some things to stay on the lookout for!