#19 - Productivity growth in industrialized nations has dropped substantially

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D).

In this stimulus, the author begins by making an observation about productivity growth in industrialized nations as computer technology has become more widespread. Not only has productivity growth in industrialized nations dropped substantially since computer technology became widespread in the 60s and 70s, productivity growth dropped the most in industries that rely most heavily on computer technology. Thus, the author concludes, a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology probably hasn't improved its productivity growth by doing so.

While this argument perhaps appears solid at first, we are being asked to weaken this argument, so we should look for any possible shaky points in the author's reasoning. I found it interesting that the author jumped from industries as a whole to a specific business within that industry; perhaps the overlap is not as airtight as we thought?

With weaken questions, we should always focus on the conclusion, which in this stimulus is the last sentence. If we logically negate it, we get: a business that has increased its reliance on computer technology probably HAS improved its productivity growth by doing so. So, we should look for an answer choice that defends this idea. Perhaps we can exploit a possible correlation-causation flaw: maybe the businesses that are most reliant on computer technology are the most successful in increasing their productivity, and the businesses that are slow to become dependent on technology are responsible for weighing down the industry average.

Answer choice (A): This strengthens the argument by explaining why a dependence on computer technology has hindered the productivity growth of industries: it makes them extremely inefficient. Skip.

Answer choice (B): Interesting to know, I guess, but why? Was it because of a dependence on computer technology? This answer doesn't say. In addition, we're only concerned with industrialized nations in this argument, and this does nothing to defend our prephrase. Skip.

Answer choice (C): This answer may seem attractive, but its scope is too limited to be helpful. Even if some industries saw a substantial increase in productivity as computer technology became more widespread, we're talking about industries as a whole, and more specifically, what we can say about a specific business because of industries as a whole.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Yes! Not only does this answer choice have sufficient scope by discussing all industries, it makes clear that the specific businesses that invested most heavily in computer technology saw the greatest increase in productivity growth. It's only the businesses that were slow to rely on computer technology that saw their productivity drop.

Answer choice (E): Good, but of course, not guaranteed, and we're talking about businesses now, not later. Does a reliance on computer technology make them less productive, or not?

[alicechoi86@gmail.com]

I mistakenly chose (C) here, instead of the correct answer (D).

I read this conclusion as cause-and-effect:
Cause: business increased reliance on computer technology
Effect: NOT improved its productivity growth

In order to WEAKEN, I thought (C) is a case where the Cause is present, but Effect is not.
Industries responsible for producing computer technology (this indicates "reliance on computer technology") have the effect of increasing substantially (which indicates improving its productivity growth)

I had eliminated (D) and (E) for talking about "investing" in computer technology, and I thought that was a Shell Game for "reliance on computer technology.

I would love any insights on how to think about this question. Thank you!

[bella243]

I mistakenly chose (C) here, instead of the correct answer (D).

I read this conclusion as cause-and-effect:
Cause: business increased reliance on computer technology
Effect: NOT improved its productivity growth

In order to WEAKEN, I thought (C) is a case where the Cause is present, but Effect is not.
Industries responsible for producing computer technology (this indicates "reliance on computer technology") have the effect of increasing substantially (which indicates improving its productivity growth)

I had eliminated (D) and (E) for talking about "investing" in computer technology, and I thought that was a Shell Game for "reliance on computer technology.

I would love any insights on how to think about this question. Thank you!

Hi Alice,

Just my two cents as I'm also trying to work through PT92. I eliminated C because it refers to a group that is more narrow than what is stated in the conclusion; I would think that a group of companies that "produce" computers is smaller than the group of companies that "rely" on computers. I also generally read "reliance on computers" as using them, not so much producing them.

Where in D, while "invested in" is not the same as "relying," it can include reliance as well. If a company "invested most heavily in computers", then it presumably uses these computers and relies on them.

This is just my thinking which is in no way perfect. Could someone at Powerscore please step in and comment on my reasoning here?

Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

Bella's response is a good one, and I agree that investing heavily on computer technology indicates an increased reliance on that technology. It's about using computers, not making them, and that distinction is crucial in understanding what makes C a weaker choice.

I see two other problems with answer C. First, the answer is about an industry, but tells us nothing about any single business within that industry. Our job is to weaken the claim about a business, not about an industry as a whole. So in that sense, answer C is not responsive to the argument. Maybe the industry is growing by adding more and more businesses, but none of those individual businesses are seeing any growth in productivity?

Second, the argument is about businesses that increase their reliance on computer technology. It's not enough to simply look at a business that uses that technology; we have to see a business increase that reliance. In answer C, there is no indication that the businesses producing that technology did anything to increase their reliance on that tech. Maybe they were always 100% reliant on it?

Answer C has a lot going for it, but ultimately answer D is the better choice for these reasons, in my opinion. I hope that helps!

[MillerP]

So, correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I assessed this.

Premise 1: productivity growth in industrialized nations has dropped since the 60's & 70's and computers started popping up around that time
Premise 2: productivity growth has dropped the most in industries that most heavily rely on computers

Conclusion: If a business increases its reliance on computers, then it probably won't improve its productivity growth

The vulnerability: productivity growth may have simply plateaued for any other reason (trade, war, politics, covid, etc) and computers coincidentally came around during that time. So computers are just a correlation, rather than a causation. Even though the industries are lacking growth - there could be businesses within those industries which have been growing and producing more due to heavy investment (reliance...) in computers.

The issue is the "business" vs the "industry"; industries suffered during covid, but the amazon and tesla grew while many of their competitors in those industries did not.

The first three answers are focused on the overall industry but the conclusion is focused on business, so A, B, and C are distractors and focusing on the premise. D and E are remaining and E is some speculative stuff (like bitcoin)... D is the only one which specifically and realistically weakens the conclusion. Keyword "weakens", not "disproves".

PowerScore, how far off am I?

[Adam Tyson]

Not far off at all, MillerP! Your analysis is pretty good. One thing I would add is that there are two flaws in the argument: one is a Whole to Part flaw - just because an industry has seen shrinking growth doesn't mean a business within that industry must have had that outcome. A second flaw is one of relativity: just because growth has shrunk doesn't mean there hasn't been growth. It could be that growth slowed from 50% year-over-year to 10%, but that's still growth! Less growth (a relative term) doesn't mean no growth (an absolute term).

The correct answer essentially points out both of those flaws at once. A business can have growth within an industry whose growth is shrinking overall, and that business can be growing even if it is doing so less than it had been previously.

Nice work!

[Fightforthat170]

Hi PS,

Answer D, admittedly is the best answer out of the 5, nonetheless caught me off-guard.

And I don't know how to describe the feeling but I was reluctant to pick D even though I had eliminated all other answer choices. D sounds like a direct contradiction to the conclusion to me, which I've been warned by every LSAT prep agency to not pick answers like that.

So my question is: is D actually contradicting the conclusion? Or did I interpreted it wrong?

Is it because of the diction "...probably has not..." gives it the illusion? Since if the author is concluding "something probably did not happen" which is different than "something did not happen period", it leaves room for D to come in and say "Actually, in fact, it did happen."

The more I think about it the more I feel like this is the trick that LSAC is pulling on us, trying to trick us into second doubting D as the right answer : /

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not sure where you got that advice about not contradicting the conclusion, Fightforthat170, but I hope it wasn't from us, because that is exactly what you SHOULD be doing for many weaken questions! The whole purpose of a weaken answer is to raise doubts about the conclusion, and contradicting it raises a lot of doubts.

I wonder, though, if you are getting confused with some different, sound advice, which is that you should not (usually) contradict the premises of an argument. While that is a valid strategy in real-world arguments, it is almost never the approach being tested on the LSAT. Our focus in LR is on the degree to which the premises do or do not support the conclusion, rather than on whether those premises are themselves true or false. So we advise students to generally accept the premises, but question whether they prove the conclusion or not (hint: they rarely do).

Answer D DOES contradict the conclusion, and that is what makes it a winner!

[Fightforthat170]

I'm not sure where you got that advice about not contradicting the conclusion, Fightforthat170, but I hope it wasn't from us, because that is exactly what you SHOULD be doing for many weaken questions! The whole purpose of a weaken answer is to raise doubts about the conclusion, and contradicting it raises a lot of doubts.

I wonder, though, if you are getting confused with some different, sound advice, which is that you should not (usually) contradict the premises of an argument. While that is a valid strategy in real-world arguments, it is almost never the approach being tested on the LSAT. Our focus in LR is on the degree to which the premises do or do not support the conclusion, rather than on whether those premises are themselves true or false. So we advise students to generally accept the premises, but question whether they prove the conclusion or not (hint: they rarely do).

Answer D DOES contradict the conclusion, and that is what makes it a winner!

Thank you Adam! You're right on I confused Don't contradict the PREMISE with Don't contradict the CONCLUSION. I am so glad you pointed that out before my Nov test!!

[mab9178]

Hi,

I chose A, because I interpreted the "inefficiencies" as an alternative cause.

The stimulus posits a correlation between the heavy reliance on computer technology and productivity growth. Answer-choice A provides an alternative cause; it is not he heavy reliance on computer technology but rather the fact that these industries ran their operations inefficiently, too much overhead cost, overpaying, frivolous spending,...

I did not see A as linking the "burdening inefficiencies" to the computer technology. A the result, the correlation between reliance on computer technology and productivity growth is weakened by the correlation between inefficiencies and productivity.

But of course if the language in A is strong enough to imply that the inefficiencies are the intermediary cause in the chain between the reliance on computer technology and productivity growth, then A is out because I would strengthen, as opposed to what we're looking for to weaken the argument.

The only way for A to be wrong, in my mind, is for the inefficiencies to be caused by the heavy reliance on computer technology, but I do NOT feel that A conveys this causal relationship that the reliance on computer technology created inefficiencies that in turn lead to hindrance of productivity growth, which would have rendered A the incorrect answer because it would have strengthened the argument by tying closer together the correlation between productivity and computer technology.

Does A make it clear that the inefficiencies are those of the computer technology?

Or am I completely wrong with everything?

Respectfully,
Mazen