Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S4 · Q23 A television manufacturing plant has

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

A television manufacturing plant has a total of 1,000 workers, though an average of 10 are absent on any given day for various reasons.

Conclusion (Thus)

It is reasonable to assume that the plant could fire 10 workers without any loss in production.

Evidence

The plant has 1,000 workers, though an average of 10 are absent on any given day. On days when exactly 10 workers are out, the plant experiences no loss in production.

Evaluate

Given that ... the plant experiences no loss when they're at 990 workers vs. 1000, How can we still argue ... the plant would experience a loss in production if they fired 10 of their 1000 workers?

This is inherently a Comparison-based argument, as we're comparing our current world (1000 employees, average of 10 absent per day) to a hypothetical Plan World in which we have 990 employees.

What could be different in that world that could possibly affect production? - what if some of the 10 employees we fire are the really, really useful productive employees, whereas the ones that were typically out on those days when exactly 10 were absent were really expendable, useless employees. That would allow us to say, .

Whenever LSAT authors talk about average they tend to interpret it way too literally. It sounds like this author is doing the same.

If the average is 10, and days with exactly 10 people missing are fine, the author thinks we can ditch 10 employees. But the average being 10 might mean that on some days 30 employees are out, on other days 1 is out.

If we used to range from 970-1000 employees there, then if we fire ten people, our new range will be 960-990 (because we'll still presumably be averaging about the same number of daily absences).

Goal

The author is thinking,

But of course, now the average shortfall would just be applied to the reduced total, so you'd still have an average of 10 fewer employees per day.

23.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. ignores the possibility that if

    Not an Objection

    When we see fails to consider / ignores the possibility we can ask, "if true, would this weaken?" But in order for us to weaken, we need to be able to argue that firing 10 workers would lead to a loss in production. This is saying that if we fired 10 workers, we might even have a boost in production.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to show that the

    Why this is right

    Since there are 1000 employees, but an average of 10 are out, then there's really an average of 990 employees present every day. The author thinks, "Well on days when we have exactly 990, our production is the same. So let's fire 10 people." But assuming the absentee rate will continue to be about the same, the plant will now be operating with an average of 980 employees each day. The author hasn't provided any info about whether the plant has any loss of production when it's at 980 employees. If we're going to be firing 10 employees, then we should be comparing production rates based on an average of 990 present (currently) to an average of 980 present (after the 10 are fired). Since the author is comparing 990 (the average number who presently show up) to 990 (total employees, once the 10 are fired), the author is acting like in this new Plan World, we suddenly don't have to worry about the average of 10 who are out every day. Hence, this answer is saying, "Yo, author, you've never established that the -10 / day average will go away, but you're acting like after we fire 10 workers, we'll be operating just as we are now, when 10 of 1000 workers are absent."

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

    56% picked this

  3. takes for granted that the

    Too Strong: only when

    This answer accuses the author of thinking such things as, "on days when exactly 11 workers are absent, the normal rate of production is never attained". That's way too extreme. It wouldn't hurt the author at all if we said, "Some days, 11 people are out and the plant still produces at the normal rate". This answer is actually just doing some inverted logic of the 2nd sentence. 2nd sentence: if exactly 10 are absent ? normal rate This answer: if more than 10 absent ? normal rate

    13% picked this

  4. overlooks the possibility that certain

    Not a Strong Objection

    When we see answers starting with fails to consider / ignores the possibility we can ask, "if true, would this weaken?" Can we say, "Yo, author — certain workers are crucial to the production of televisions", and hurt her argument? Not really. It seems like she would just say, "Yes, I agree. But apparently not all 1000 are crucial, because on days when only 990 are there, the plant produces at its normal rate." To be closer to the objection we were making in our evaluation, this would have to sound more like (D) overlooks the possibility that the workers who are most likely to be fired are way more productive than the workers who are usually absent on days when exactly 10 workers are absent. To be an objection, it needs to get at the comparison -- you'd have a less productive 990 once 10 were fired than you had when it was 990 because 10 were absent.

    12% picked this

  5. takes for granted that the

    Too Strong: not affected

    This author isn't saying something crazy like, "The number of workers employed by the plant has no affect on its rate of production". No one would want to argue that ... "Yes ... whether it's 3 employees or 3 million employees. The rate of production is not affected by the number of workers employed." The author is assuming that the rate of production is not affected at this plant when it goes from a total of 1000 to 990 workers. We can't turn that assumption into the huge, sweeping claim being made in this answer choice. One of the most popular trap answer patterns in Flaw answer choices is Extreme Assumptions. When you see an answer begin with takes for granted presumes, w/o providing, justification fails to establish beware stuff that sounds more extreme than anything the author needed to assume.

    19% 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