LR Question 15 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: The introduction of mass production techniques in modern…
QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument
CONCLUSION: The introduction of mass production techniques was not universally beneficial for workers [predicted conclusion].
REASONING: Mass production techniques lowered prices, because manufacturers could hire fewer workers with less training. The lower prices allowed workers to purchase more than they could otherwise. But jobs with less training are more replaceable, so _____.
ANALYSIS: The stimulus starts by giving us some benefits to the introduction of mass production techniques – they lowered the skill floor for workers, they allow for fewer workers, and they lower prices, allowing people to buy more. But the stimulus next introduces a negative – workers are more replaceable. It seems that the author is trying to convey that the introduction of mass production techniques was a bit of a mixed bag for the common worker.
We should look for an answer that integrates the author’s positive and negative points in this way.
___________
- The author isn’t trying to compare purchasing power of skilled and unskilled workers. We don’t actually learn anything at all about skilled workers’ purchasing power.
- This may be true, but it’s outside the scope of the author’s point. The author hasn’t introduced a comparison of the effects on owners versus workers.
- There isn’t evidence to support this conclusion in the passage. It’s entirely possible that the highest paid, most skilled workers have job security.
- CORRECT. The mass production techniques have increased workers’ purchasing power, but decreased their job security.
- We don’t know anything about the amount of workers that can purchase goods produced by modern industrial techniques, let alone how that number is changing over time.
Recap: The question begins with “The introduction of mass production techniques in modern”. It is a Complete the Argument question. Learn how to master LSAT Complete the Argument questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Complete the Argument Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Complete the Argument questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers complete the argument questions.
Context: I chose E so I am mostly trying to understand why D is a better choice than E.
It does not seem like the information in the passage is enough to deduce either the conclusions of either D nor E. For E, we’ve already established that there’s not enough information to conclusively say that the percentage of workers with purchasing power has decreased. On the other hand, D says that mass production techniques undermine the job security of “workers” even though we do not have proof that job security has been impacted for highly trained workers. Perhaps job security has increased for highly trained workers and so overall job security has not been undermined.
In terms of logical flow, the last sentence starts with “since jobs for workers with little training are more vulnerable to elimination than those for more highly trained workers, …”. So I would expect a logical completion to the argument to use this difference between the workers with little training and the workers with high amounts of training. D does not reference this difference at all, and on the contrary conflates low-training & highly trained workers.
E seems to be a logical ending to the last sentence. While we don’t have evidence to say so definitively, it seems to logically follow from the beginning of the last sentence that workers with little training have lost purchasing power while highly trained workers have gained purchasing power from goods being cheaper. I think it is also reasonable based on societal trends that more workers have had little training compared to workers that are highly trained. And so it would follow that the percentage of workers who can afford to purchase goods has gone down.
Note that D says “a source for increased purchasing power for workers” (mass production techniques) “also undermines their job security”. The stimulus makes it clear that mass production employs many workers who require little training, and that it is these jobs that are vulnerable to elimination. Though it uses broader language to refer to “workers”, from very reasonable context clues and textual support is is clear that it is primarily speaking to the impact on less-trained workers. We are discussing the context of mass production, which mainly employs less-trained workers, so naturally they are the focus of the argument. Hence, D captures the tradeoff introduced by mass production: increased purchasing power but reduced job security.
E speculates that the percentage of workers who can afford goods has decreased, but this claim is not supported by the stimulus. The passage provides no evidence about trends in purchasing power or comparisons between low- and highly trained workers over time. To choose E, you’d need to assume that low-trained workers have lost purchasing power, high-trained workers have gained it, and low-trained workers outnumber high-trained workers—all of which go beyond the information given.
You mentioned “societal trends” in your comment – what society are you referring to? In what era? That’s a good way to catch if you’re making assumptions beyond what we know. If you can’t answer such questions based on textual support (and you can’t in this case, because that information simply isn’t there), then it’s not supported by the stimulus. Hope that helps!