LR Question 15 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: Shortsighted motorists learn the hard way…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: The city council made the right choice by hiring an investment advisor.
REASONING: Other cities have hired advisors. The decision paid off for them.
ANALYSIS: The first half of the stimulus is just fluff. The analogy about shortsighed motorists doesn’t serve any real purpose in the argument.
Just because other cities did well with advisors doesn’t mean that it’s a good move for this city. As a start, we’d want to know the other cities’ situations were similar to this city’s situation.
___________
- Does this mean the city will break down and need a repair? The analogy to cars only goes so far….
Also, maintenance can still be a good idea, even if it’s not 100% effective. - CORRECT. This is a major difference. An economic advisor might only be useful when a city reaches a certain size. It might be harmful to hire one too early, if the advisor gives you strategies that are only appropriate for a large city.
- Who cares about motorists? They were just used as an example to make you think about the wisdom of long term planning.
Also, this answer choice doesn’t tell us whether drivers had good or bad non-financial reasons to avoid maintenance. - This sounds good, but it doesn’t mean those advisors are a bad deal. People often hesitate to buy things that will clearly benefit them.
- The columnist admits this; they say the payoff will likely come in several years.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
This one’s kind of annoying.
So, I did pre-phrase that the answer would point to a difference between the cities.
But, first, these are economic development advisors, is it assuming too much that their expertise is irrespective of the city’s size? i.e. that whether a city is small or large is not that important?
Second, the columnist says *this will pay off IN A FEW YEARS*. Answer E directly negates that.
I was going back and forth between B and E, but it seemed like an answer that directly negates part of the reasoning in the stimulus strongly weakens it, no?
When I am weighing the two answers in my mind, that seems much more important than my pre-phrase about city-size differences, because again, these are economic advisors. They are experts, and isn’t it making an assumption that their effectiveness depends on cities being similar sized?
What if you said “this doctor has been known to very effectively treat patients; therefore they will effectively treat my Aunt Sally”. Would it weaken the argument if Sally was significantly larger or smaller than the doctor’s normal patients?
I think there’s some flaws underlying your reasoning.
First on E, it’s not negation. E just mentions something that the stimulus already acknowledges. It’s like this:
You: “I’m going to invest in an LSAT Prep course because it’s supposed to pay off in 6 months.”
Me: “Well, you shouldn’t buy it because it won’t pay off in a month.”
Okay? How does my point counter yours at all? It doesn’t. You’re buying it with the knowledge and appreciation that it’ll pay off in 6 months. You’re not naive to the fact that it’ll take more than a month. Same goes for E and the stimulus. It doesn’t weaken it.
As for B. Remember, we’re looking for a reason why the city’s investment might not have the same outcome as the other cities mentioned. Size is a huge factor for an economy. Why would a small, wealthy country like Luxembourg’s economic strategy apply to a big, less wealthy country like Bangladesh? This is the same point that B highlights. The columnist’s city is much smaller and has a different economic profile. That suggests that what worked elsewhere might not work here, directly challenging the inference that this investment will likely pay off in the same way.
Your analogy with the doctor actually supports B. If Sally were morbidly obese, the doctor WOULD probably have to alter the usual treatment. I’d imagine the exact same treatment would have wildly different consequences for an obese vs. anorexic patient.
Hope that helps!
Thanks Aaminah, that totally makes sense. And I tried to reply to my own comment five min later when I realized some of that to spare you the trouble! But I couldn’t reply to an unmoderated one. I think that all makes sense, and especially your first point.
I might quibble with the second, because it doesn’t seem necessarily more likely that the economic advisor applies the *same* strategy to every city, or the skilled doctor the same treatment to every patient. Maybe they’re just good at their jobs and so find the approach that works best in each case.
But I agree that B is the much stronger answer for the sum of the arguments.
Appreciate it! Hope these discussions are helpful to others.
No worries! Glad to hear you’re enjoying the site.
As for the tailoring strategy thing, I do agree that I focused a little too much on applying the same strategy vs. different ones in my response. The general idea remains the same though. The only justification the stimulus gives for why there’s going to be a big payoff is that other cities got that same return on their investment. So, to weaken this, the easiest approach is to show why the outcome in those cities may not apply in this case. One way to do that is B: the characteristics of this economy is very different from those other ones, so it’s doubtful that what worked for them will necessarily work for us.
So, to take it back to the doctor example, it’s not that the doctor necessarily would suggest that an anorexic and obese patient should undergo the same treatment. It’s more analogous to a health influencer saying: “Sally (obese) was smart to invest in treatment X by Dr. Brown, because it worked for John.” And then I say: “Well, John is anorexic so maybe you should reconsider your reasoning.”
The same logic in the end, but it’s not coming from the perspective of the doctor/the economic adviser (which my previous comment suggested and where we get a little derailed). This is the columnist (a third party) writing their opinion. You might say, well the economic adviser is an expert so obviously they would tailor the planning to THIS city’s size. But, we’re not dealing with the adviser here. We’re dealing with the columnist and weakening the columnist’s reasoning. And since the columnist’s reasoning is that it worked for other cities, we can undermine this by showing that the cities they’re comparing are fundamentally different.
Thanks for the engagement!
I think that makes a lot of sense and is really well explained. Thank you for taking the time.
Stuck on D… doesn’t D suggest that they likely got a cheap and unqualified advisor, and thus it will likely not have a big payoff?
D is essentially suggesting that city councils generally wouldn’t spend the money on a qualified advisor. However, what cities *generally* do is irrelevant. We are working with this specific city, who the author is praising for considering the long-term investment.
I can see where you’re coming from with the inference that because cities generally don’t get qualified advisors, this city might have got a cheap one – but the author of the passage is referring to the advisor as an “investment” that will likely “have a big payoff in several years” – indicating that the city made a long-term decision that other cities might be hesitant to.
Hey Graeme and co.!
Your resources are great, so I want to return in any little way I can; under ANALYSIS, you say “The analogy about doesn’t serve any real purpose in the argument.” I think you missed a word after “about.”
Best,
James
Thanks for catching this James, and I’m glad to hear you’ve been enjoying the resources! The page has been updated.