Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S4 · Q14 The plant manager’s argument is

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Plant Manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the atmosphere by using a new process.

Conclusion (So)

Overall, adopting the new process will cost much bring the company no profit.

Evidence

The equipment for the new process is expensive to buy and install. The new process costs more to run than the current process (because the copper has to cool and then be re-heated).

Evaluate

Since the author's conclusion is about profit, it's about a Net Gain / Loss between expenses and revenue.

The author builds her case that this new process is not profitable by listing two ways in which expenses will rise: 1. new one-time expense of buying and installing equipment 2. new recurring expense of higher processing costs

If we are trying to argue with the conclusion and argue that this new process could still be profitable, we need to point to some other expense that goes down, some revenue that goes up, or both.

All we're told so far is that the new process would greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere. Can we turn that into a smaller expense or bigger revenue?

Maybe there's some environmental tax the plant has to pay based on sulfur emissions, and it would save so much money by releasing less sulfur into the atmosphere that it would more than offset the extra money being spent on the equipment / installation / processing.

Goal

Look for an answer pointing to the possibility that this new process could still be profitable, if it leads to a reduction in some expense or to an increase in revenue (that could offset the higher expenses of installing and running the new process).

14.

The plant manager's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  1. Correct

    The overall conclusion is about

    Why this is right

    Is the overall conclusion about a net effect? Sure, it says "overall this new process will bring the company no profit". Since profit is the same as "net revenue" (i.e. Revenue - Expenses), it's true that a conclusion about profit is a conclusion about a net effect. Did the evidence only consider some factors that contribute to higher/lower profit? Yes, it only covered the expense of buying / installing and the expense of processing costs. It fails to consider other categories of expense (maybe the environmental taxes on sulfur emissions are lower) and it fails to consider revenue (maybe the new process would output copper that is better and sells for more than the current process does). Since this answer choice accurately describes the argument and that description points to a potential way that the conclusion could be wrong, this answer is legit.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    74% picked this

  2. The support for the overall

    Bad Evidence Match Not Inappropriate Appeal

    This answer seems to allude to one of the 10 famous flaws, an Inappropriate Appeal (to emotion or in this case to a dubious authority). But the evidence wasn't just the plant manager's authority. The evidence was about the high costs of buying / installing / running the new equipment.

    3% picked this

  3. The overall conclusion reached merely

    Not Circular

    This answer describes one of the 10 famous flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the premise restates the conclusion or requires the conclusion to be true. This answer is almost always wrong. This conclusion talks about profit. None of the evidence mentions profit. So there's no way that this conclusion is merely repeating the evidence.

    4% picked this

  4. Evidence that is taken to

    Trap

    Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match Not Probable vs. Certain This answer refers to a semi-famous flaw we might call Possible vs. Probable vs. Certain. This hasn't been a correct answer in many, many years. Was the evidence saying that something was probable? No, the evidence said that it costs a lot to buy / install / run this new smelting process. That's enough of a mismatch to say goodbye to this answer.

    7% picked this

  5. Facts that are not directly

    Out of Scope: irrelevant premises

    The two premises are saying that it's expensive to buy, install, and run this new smelting equipment. New Expenses associated with X are definitely relevant to a conclusion that is talking about whether X would be profitable.

    12% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free