Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S2 · Q23 Columnist: The relief from the

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

Columnist: The relief from the drudgery of physical labor that much modern technology affords its users renders them dependent on this technology, and, more importantly, on the elaborate energy systems required to run it.

Conclusion (clearly, then)

In addition to undermining life's charm, much modern technology diminishes the overall well-being of its users.

Evidence

Modern technology provides relief from the drudgery of physical labor, but it makes its users more dependent on this technology and on the elaborate energy systems required to run it.

Evaluate

There are two new terms in the conclusion, "undermining life's charm", and "diminishing the overall well-being of its users".

The author must be assuming stuff in relation to both phrases. Did the evidence talk about anything like "undermining life's charm"?

Not really. We know that modern technology relieves us from the drudgery of physical labor. Was the author assuming that ? Maybe.

But we should also consider the possibility that the phrase "in addition to undermining life's charm" is a random aside. It's not part of the main clause of the conclusion, and it's the main clause that the author is concluding.

Did the evidence talk about "diminishing the overall well-being of its users"? The closest match would be the one negative thing we heard, which was that modern technology makes its users more dependent on technology and the energy systems that run it.

So the author seems to have a Linking assumption that .

We've covered Links. What about Objections? How could we accept the evidence but argue that almost all modern technology improves / maintains the well-being of its users?

We could argue in a Net Gain / Loss style that even though modern technology has the negative of making us more dependent on tech / energy systems, it has positives that offset or outweigh that negative.

Goal

Look for a Linking assumption connecting "more dependence on tech / energy systems" with "diminishes overall well-being".

Or look for a Defender assumption saying,

23.

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

Physical labor is essential to
Too Strong: essential
We thought that the author was possibly saying that "life's charm comes in part from doing physical labor", since she seems to think that when modern technology relieves us of the drudgery of physical labor, it undermines/reduces life's charm. But that's not nearly as strong as this answer, which says, "It's impossible to live a fulfilling life without physical labor".
1% picked this
Correct
Self-sufficiency contributes to a person’s
Why this is right
This is a Linking answer connecting "more dependent on technology and its underlying energy systems (i.e. less sufficient than before)" with "diminishes overall-wellbeing". If the author thinks that an increase in dependency results in a diminution of well-being, then the author must have believed that there is some connection between self-sufficiency / dependency and well-being. If we negated this answer, it would surely weaken (as all correct answers on NA must do). Negation: Self-sufficiency does not contribute to a person's well being. If self-sufficiency has nothing to do with our well-being, then how could becoming more dependent / less self-sufficient possibly diminish our overall well-being?
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
89% picked this
People are not free if
Out of Scope: free
No part of this argument is talking about whether or not people are "free", so the author has not committed herself to any views on when people are / aren't "free".
2% picked this
Anything causing a loss in
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: unjustifiable Too Strong: unless No part of this argument is talking about whether or not modern technology is "justifiable", so the author has not committed herself to any views on what is or isn't justifiable. This answer is very strongly worded (red flag on NA) because it's conditional. We don't try negating conditional answers on NA. We just look at them and ask ourselves whether the author ever made such a reasoning move. This answer says: If a loss in life's then the loss charm is not ? in charm was compensated not justifiable by some gain Neither half of this matches the argument. The premise did not establish that modern technology causes a loss in life's charm without any compensatory gain. And the conclusion isn't saying "Modern technology is not justifiable".
1% picked this
Technology inherently limits the well-being
Too Strong: inherently limits
The conclusion is much more limited than this answer. Also, the fact that this answer choice seems so much like a near-rephrasing of the Conclusion can warn us that this is wrong. Correct answers on Necessary Assumption don't sound like a restatement of the conclusion. They either Link language from Premise to Conclusion (or from Premise to Premise), or they rule out a potential objection. The author is only claiming that much modern technology diminishes the well-being of its users. This answer is saying that all technology of any era inherently limits the well-being of its users.
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