QUESTION TEXT: Certain methods of creating high-quality…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Prevent Counterfeiting ➞ some hard images
REASONING: No evidence is provided, apart from the contextual statement that some counterfeiting involves measuring images.
ANALYSIS: Normally, on sufficient assumption questions, you can draw the conclusion, fill in the evidence, and then spot the gap. However, some arguments literally give no evidence for their conclusion. In this case, all we have is this conclusion:
Prevent Counterfeiting ➞ some hard images
If you split it apart, it looks like this: PC HI
To prove this correct, we just need a statement that fills that gap:
- Conclusion: Prevent counterfeiting ➞ can’t copy images
- Contrapositive: can copy images ➞ can’t prevent counterfeiting
This might seem like circular reasoning, but it’s not. It’s like saying “I think pandas eat bamboo”. And then the sufficient assumption would be “The encyclopedia says that Pandas do eat bamboo”. It’s the same statement….but the first one was unfounded, whereas the second one provides proof.
Note: It seems like the first sentence is evidence. Indeed, I even listed it in the reasoning section, above. But it’s not a conditional that connects to either part of the conclusion, and so it can’t help us prove the argument. That means we ignore it.
- This doesn’t help prove we need better images. Maybe sophisticated copying technology can copy better images too.
- CORRECT. The conclusion was just two facts. This connects those facts. You have to take the contrapositive to see how it leads to the conclusion.
Answer: Measured ➞ Can counterfeit
Contrapositive: Can’t counterfeit ➞ Can’t measure
Note that the terms don’t exactly match the terms of the conclusion in the stimulus. Who cares? It’s plain that they’re pretty much the same thing. If you make an image “very difficult or impossible” to measure, then that’s about the same as saying people won’t be able to measure them. And “no impediment to being replicated” = can counterfeit.
- So? Counterfeiting technology could still be good enough. This doesn’t prove that hard images are required to prevent counterfeiting.
- So? We’re trying to prove that hard images are necessary. This answer merely shows they are rare.
- It’s not clear how this affects the argument. If the new designs aren’t images, then this contradicts the argument. If the new designs are images, then it’s still not clear they’re an essential cause.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly