Logical Reasoning

PT112 · S3 · Q14 We learn to use most

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

We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through written instructions, without knowledge of the machines’ inner workings, because most machines are specifically designed for use by nonexperts.

Conclusion

In general, attaining technological expertise prepares you no better for tomorrow's job market than does attaining verbal / quantitative skills.

Evidence

We learn to use most of the machines in our lives through written instructions, not through knowledge of the machines' inner workings, since most machines are specifically designed to be used by nonexperts.

Evaluate

The author's argument seems to boil down to this,

One big objection to this would be,

The author has shifted from a premise about whether technological expertise helps us to use the machines in our lives to a conclusion about whether technological expertise helps us to get a job.

Goal

It seems unlikely that this question wants us Linking assumption, like, , but it could.

I would suspect that we'll see a Defender assumption, saying something like, .

14.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

Fewer people receive a traditional
Unknown Comparison
The author has never spoken about numbers or declining trends. We have no way to say she's committed to thinking that fewer people receive traditional education. Yes, she seems to be "sticking up" for traditional education, but that doesn't mean it's on the decline. People stick up for Christmas every year, even though just as many people (or more, due to population growth) celebrate it every year.
1% picked this
Facility in operating machines designed
Too Strong: almost never enhanced
The author thinks that in most cases (at least 51% of cases), we can learn to use a machine without knowledge of its inner workings. That isn't as strong as saying, "Knowing its inner workings almost always (at least 90% of the time) does nothing to enhance your facility in operating a machine." The author was saying that knowledge of inner workings is usually not necessary, but this is saying such knowledge is almost always value-less.
13% picked this
Correct
Most jobs in tomorrow’s job
Why this is right
Whenever we see that an answer on Necessary Assumption is ruling out an idea using the word not, we slow down and negate it. Does this negation weaken the argument? Most jobs in tomorrow's job market will demand the ability to operate machines designed for use only by experts. Sure! The author was thinking, "Since most machines are geared for nonexperts, technological expertise isn't going to help you land a job." She's assuming that these jobs in the future will be using the sort of machines that are geared for nonexperts, stuff like fax machines, copiers, laptops, blenders, etc. But what if there are other machines .... gamma knife, dialysis machine, gene splicer, transistor designer, chemical centrifuge, solar panels, etc. ... that do require expertise, and most of the future's jobs will demand that? In that case, it sounds like technological expertise would help you land a job. Since the negation of the answer weakens the argument, this is correct.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
68% picked this
Students cannot attain technological expertise
Too Strong: cannot
The author hasn't committed herself to the idea that you can't do both. If someone says, "X will serve you no better than Y", they're not saying it's impossible to do both X and Y. If I say, "try all you want buddy, but Samiha is not going to date you. Sending her flowers will serve you no better than writing her a love song", I haven't told my friend "it's impossible for you to both send her flowers and write her a love song".
10% picked this
When learning to use a
Too Strong: never
The author has not said anything extreme enough to justify accusing her of thinking "tech expertise is never more important". She hedged her wording in her premise and said only that "most machines are designed for nonexperts".
8% 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