QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: Inertia is more important than our desire comfort or safety.
REASONING: People with bad working conditions often didn’t like technology.
ANALYSIS: This argument is incredibly vague. Which technologies did the working people oppose? Were the technologies going to help them, or make them worse off? This argument doesn’t say that the technologies were going to improve working conditions. Also note the argument doesn’t say why working people opposed technology. It pulls inertia out of thin air.
In other words, the working people may have been completely correct to resist the new technology. Technology often helps, but not always, and not everyone.
- CORRECT. This shows that people realized the new technologies were going to cost them their jobs. Their behavior showed self-interest, not inertia.
- The argument doesn’t mention any challenges associated with the technology. The argument didn’t say what effects the technology had, good or bad.
- So? This could mean that 1% of technologies were accepted and 99% were opposed. “Some” and “many” are very vague.
- The stimulus didn’t say whether the technological innovations were rapidly or gradually put into place. And if people “tend” to do something, they may still often not do it.
- We don’t know if workers like or dislike being more productive. (They produce more, but maybe the work will be duller). And we don’t know if these specific technologies were among those that increase productivity. There still could be quite a few technologies that didn’t increase productivity.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions