Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S2 · Q16 The ability to access information

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

The ability to access information via computer is a tremendous resource for visually impaired people.

Conclusion (Thus)

Visually impaired people can now access information from computers more easily than they can from most traditional sources.

Evidence

Only a limited amount of printed material is accessible in braille, large type, or audiotape.

But a person with the right hardware and software can access a large quantity of info from libraries and museums around the world, and the computer can read that info aloud, display it in large type, or produce a braille version.

Evaluate

Since this conclusion is comparative, we want to size up this comparison between how easy it is for visually impaired people to access info from computers vs. from most traditional sources.

We know that computers win in terms of "volume of material available". We were told that "only a limited amount of printed information" is available through traditional sources, while a computer "can access a large quantity of information".

But to use the computer, you need the right hardware and software (maybe you need subscription accounts with these libraries and museums / maybe you need a special 3D printer to print the raised surface of braille).

So it could be that the the combination of technical requirements you need to get this stuff via computer actually makes it easier to access information from traditional sources.

Goal

Let's look for anything that helps our this comparison. If it sounds like it's cheap / easy / accessible to use a computer, that helps the author. If we hear more about how it's difficult to access certain stuff via traditional means, that also helps the author.

16.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A computerized speech synthesizer is
Weak Impact
This somewhat helps Team Computer, because it's saying it would often be cheaper to buy the hardware hookup that can make your computer read information aloud than it would to purchase a complete library of audiotapes. But it's not a super impactful idea, since the quantifier often is sort of like many / frequently / commonly. They all mean that there are a plurality of cases in which this is true, but none of them mean that in a majority of cases it's true. So since this answer leaves the door open for the idea that "most of the time the complete library of audiotapes is cheaper, even though often times it can be more expensive", it doesn't do much Also, do people really need to buy a complete library of audiotapes? Couldn't they just buy audiotapes on demand for the resources they want? It's not clear that this head-to-head comparison even pertains to most visually impaired people, because it's a pretty big jump to assume they'd be shopping for a complete library of audiotapes. We can keep this on a first pass because it's not nothing, but we should be expecting to find a correct answer with more impact.
4% picked this
Correct
Relatively easy-to-use computer systems that
Why this is right
This has much more punch than (A). Sometimes the easiest way to feel the impact of a strengthen answer is to toggle over to its opposite. If we said "easy-to-use computer systems that can do all this stuff for visually impaired people are in very scarce supply" that would badly weaken. Even if this technology is rad, if it's hard to find, then it's hard for the author to argue that visually impaired people can now access info more easily from computers. So the fact that this is saying "this rad technology is widely available and relatively easy to use" helps the author's case. It's attainable and it doesn't involve a lot of training or expertise? That sounds pretty easy to access!
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
89% picked this
Many visually impaired people prefer
Trap
Weakens, if anything Out of Scope: prefer The subject matter of the conclusion is really about "ease of access" not which medium visually impaired people "prefer to use". So it doesn't really make any difference to this argument which source visually impaired people prefer. But, if anything, this is saying they prefer the traditional sources, so it's going the wrong way. We're trying to strengthen a conclusion that favors Team Computer, not Team Traditional Sources.
1% picked this
Most visually impaired people who
Weakens, if anything
This doesn't tip the scales in either direction. It actually makes it sound like computers and traditional sources are providing similar information to visually impaired people. It sounds like most of the people who may have 'switched' to computer access aren't really gaining access to any new information they didn't have via traditional sources. Since the conclusion is saying that accessing information is easier with computers, whereas this answer is saying "computers and traditional sources are providing access to the same information", it feels more like a weakener.
2% picked this
The rate at which printed
Out of Scope: future
This strengthens the notion that "in the future, it will be easier to access info via computer", but the future tense doesn't matter to us. This conclusion is saying "visually impaired people can now access info more easily".
4% 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