LR Question 11 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Manager: This company's supply chain will develop…
QUESTION TYPE: Identify the Conclusion
CONCLUSION: It’s wrong to say that we shouldn’t fix the vendor contracts just because (weaknesses in the supply chain) will only occur far in the future.
REASONING: It would be wrong for an individual to put off saving for retirement just because the problem (having no money in retirement) is far away.
ANALYSIS: This is an argument by analogy. The author says that it’s a mistake to avoid fixing a problem just because the consequences won’t appear for a long time. They use the example of retirement to support their conclusion that we should do the same thing in the analogous case of the supply chain.
“But” is a significant word and indicates the author’s opinion. The author disagrees with the “some people” who argue we don’t need to fix anything yet.
Also note the use of the word “irresponsible”. That’s a moral judgement. Moral judgements tend to be conclusions.
___________
- This is the opposing opinion. The author’s conclusion is that these people are wrong.
- CORRECT. This is it. See the analysis above.
- This is the author’s evidence. It supports the idea it would be irresponsible not to fix the problem.
- The author didn’t say this. They used an analogy of an individual to prove one specific point: it’s irresponsible to avoid fixing a problem just because the consequences won’t show up for a while.
But that doesn’t mean companies should act like individuals in every respect. Companies don’t retire, and they’re immortal if well-managed. - This is silly. The argument is about what companies should do. Retirement advice was just an analogy.
Also, this advice is nonsense. If you’re 60 and haven’t saved money, you probably have an even greater need to save money.
More Resources for Identify the Conclusion Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Identify the Conclusion questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers identify the conclusion questions.
How do you differentiate evidence from conclusion? I see two conclusions: the first sentence and the third sentence. I was torn between the two under timed conditions. I didn’t find your explanation helpful for why C is wrong. Thanks for what you do.
I think it would be helpful for you to try to summarize this manager’s argument as though you’re explaining it to someone else. C is only mentioned once in a single sentence out of the five that make up the stimulus. While it is mentioned, it does not encapsulate the idea that the manager is trying to get across, which is that it would be irresponsible to not fix the problem. Another way to check if a sentence is evidence or the conclusion is to look at the other premises in the stimulus and see which of the two you are deciding between, they support. The manager’s example of the financial planner doesn’t do anything to support that the company’s supply chain will develop weaknesses. But it does support that it would be irresponsible if the company did not address the necessary changes. Is it:
It is irresponsible not to fix –> and so there will be weaknesses unless we change, OR
There will be weaknesses unless we change –> And so it is irresponsible not to fix
Irresponsibility can’t cause a physical problem in the world in this way.
I think this is crap reasoning. I know it’s silly to argue with the LSAT because the answer is the answer, but “it’s irresponsible to put off until later what you should fix today” is not a conclusion, it’s a reason given in support of a conclusion (“we need to fix our supply chain NOW”). This is a really frustrating answer and I’d like some clarification on why I’m apparently confusion a conclusion with a premise when it’s pretty apparent to me that the first sentence is the conclusion.
I’m confused. “we need to fix our supply chain NOW” is pretty much what B, the correct answer, says.
It might have been how I phrased the conclusion. I edited what I wrote, it should be clearer now.
Yeah, fair enough. Sorry for my tone–it was inappropriate. I was in LSAT hell, though that’s not an excuse. I was overthinking and rationalizing a wrong answer. I appreciate everything you do.