LR Question 10 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Computer manufacturers have sought to make computers…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: Computers can’t currently be made significantly faster.
REASONING: Making a chip smaller without lowering sophistication will increase speed. We can’t do this at the moment.
ANALYSIS: The argument assumes that we can only increase chip speed by making them smaller. They also assume that we can only make computers faster by increasing chip speed.
Maybe we could make chips faster without making them smaller. Or maybe we could make a computer faster by improving other parts of the computer.
This question negates a sufficient condition for increased computer speed, and incorrectly assumes that negates the necessary condition. We have to assume the sufficient condition was also necessary.
___________
- CORRECT. If there are other ways to make computers faster than maybe we can do it, even if we can’t shrink chips.
- This isn’t necessary. We already know that shrinking chips isn’t an option.
- The argument isn’t saying we should decrease sophistication. The author just says that we can’t shrink chips without losing sophistication.
- Who cares what manufacturers believe? They could all be wrong.
- The passage never mentioned increasing sophistication. In fact, if we can increase speed by increasing sophistication, then maybe they argument is wrong. This assumption might harm the argument.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
Why is the answer not C? The argument says because we can’t make chips smaller without decreasing sophistication, comps can’t be faster. But it never states that the increase in speed from the smaller chip is outweighed by the sophistication lost. I thought that was the mismatched assumption and therefore if we know that you decreasing size and sophistication won’t increase speed then the argument is valid?
Close, but the stimulus says chips can’t be made *significantly* faster. It’s possible they could be made somewhat faster.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.