QUESTION TEXT: Engineer: Semiplaning monohulls are a new kind…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: Semiplaning monohulls will probably be profitable.
REASONING: Semiplaning monohulls are more expensive than regular ships. But they offer the same advantages over regular ships as jets do over regular airplanes: greater speed and reliability.
ANALYSIS: You’re not supposed to be critical on role in argument questions. You just have to figure out what’s going on in the argument.
Here you’re being asked to explain why the author says that semiplane monohulls are more expensive. The author says this is a disadvantage of semiplane monohulls. The argument then uses an analogy to jet planes to show this disadvantage won’t be decisive.
- There aren’t two analogies between semiplane monohulls and jets. Only one, comparing the attributes of jets and monohulls: both are more expensive, but also faster and more reliable.
Stating that monohulls are more expensive is part of the same analogy.
Trust me, you’ll know two analogies when you see it.
- There’s no analogy between semiplane monohulls and normal ships. The argument just points out a difference between them: semiplane monohulls are more expensive, but faster.
- Actually, saying that semiplane monohulls are more expensive works against the conclusion. The author concludes that semiplane monohulls will be profitable despite their cost.
- CORRECT. This matches. The high price of semiplane monohulls is an argument against them. However, the jet plane analogy shows that monohulls are likely to succeed nonetheless.
- Nonsense. The statement in question draws a distinction on one characteristic: price.
This answer talks about characteristics, plural.
The part about the conclusion is wrong too – the conclusion wasn’t about airplane distinctions. The conclusion was that semiplane monohulls will probably succeed.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly