Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S1 · Q12 Economist: Technology now changes so rapidly

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

Economist: Technology now changes so rapidly that workers need periodic retraining.

Conclusion (Hence)

Large governmental job retraining programs are no longer a viable option in the effort to retrain workers efficiently.

Evidence

Periodic retraining can only be efficient if it allows individual companies to meet their own short-term needs.

Evaluate

We have a premise and a conclusion that are both talking about whether or not retraining can be efficient.

The premise says, If it doesn't meet individual companies' short-term needs, then retraining won't be efficient.

The conclusion is saying that Large governmental job retraining won't be efficient.

So the author must be assuming that Large governmental job retraining won't meet individual companies' short term needs.

Formally, the conclusion is trying to prove this: Large govt ------------------------> not retraining efficient

The premise provides this part of the chain: doesn't help ---> not companies meet efficient short-term needs

So the linking assumption we're missing is this: Large govt -------> doesn't help retraining companies meet short-term needs

Goal

Look for the missing link we spotted, 'Large governmental job retraining programs don't allow individual companies to meet their own short-term needs'.

12.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the economist's argument?

  1. Workers did not need to

    Too Strong: no need for retraining

    This has nothing to do with our conclusion, which is about the present tense and is about "large governmental job retraining programs", so in that sense it shouldn't be too tempting. It wouldn't hurt the author's argument at all if workers did need some retraining even back when tech didn't change so rapidly, so there's no reason the author needs to assume that there was no need for retraining in the past.

    3% picked this

  2. Large job retraining programs will

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: pace of change slows Relative vs. Absolute: less efficient This argument is only discussing what is currently true in a climate with a rapid rate of technological change. The author doesn't need to assume anything about a hypothetical world in which the pace of change is slower. This argument is only talking about whether or not a retraining program is efficient (Absolute language). The argument isn't making any claims or assumptions about being more / less efficient (Relative language).

    3% picked this

  3. No single type of retraining

    Too Strong: nothing is most efficient

    The conclusion only cares about large governmental job retraining programs, so other types of retraining programs are out of scope. If we negated this and said, "There is one type of retraining that is most efficient" that wouldn't hurt the argument at all (as long as that type of retraining isn't large governmental job retraining).

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Large governmental job retraining programs

    Why this is right

    This is the missing link we predicted. Had we not derived this missing link ahead of time, this answer has a couple attractive features: 1. the conclusion introduced a brand new term (large govt job retraining programs), so the correct answer was 95% likely to have that new term in it, and this is the only answer that does. 2. the answer choice is linking language from the conclusion (large govt job retraining programs) to language from the evidence (meet short term needs of individual companies). Finally, we could also get ourselves to like this answer by seeing that the negation would hurt the argument. If we said, "Hey, author -- large govt job retraining programs do meet the short-term needs of individual companies ... so they could be an efficient retraining, so they could still be a viable option in the effort to retrain workers efficiently."

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

    93% picked this

  5. Technological workers are more likely

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: move to find work This introduces a brand new concept of "moving in order to find work" and accuses the author of assuming some comparison between past and present in relation to how much tech workers are likely to move. We didn't talk about any of this, so the author hasn't committed to any ideas relating to it.

    1% 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