Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S3 · Q1 When industries rapidly apply

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

When industries rapidly apply new technology, people who possess the skills and knowledge to master it prosper, while many others lose their jobs.

Setup Claims

causal-conditional (when X happens, so do Y and Z)

If an industry rapidly → ppl with needed skills applies new tech and brains prosper while others lose jobs

pivot (but) conditional (those who are X will eventually be Y)

Resist new tech → superceded by those that don't (and all your employees lose jobs)

The Blank (obviously, then = conclusion)

Resisting the application of new tech ....

Evaluate

We know with Logical Completion that when we're picking something to be the Conclusion of the paragraph (as we usually are), then we want a safely worded way of pulling together the ideas that have been mentioned.

And on all Inference questions, when the final idea begins with a pivot word (But, Yet, However), that's a strong clue that the test wants us to reconcile that pivot fact with the thing that came before it.

So we have two ideas we need to reconcile / synthesize: - if a business rapidly adopts new tech, many lose their jobs but - if a business resists new tech, then all the employees lose their jobs.

Notice, that we're focusing on the Overlapping Concept (people losing jobs).

Goal

It looks like it's better to adopt new tech (and only have some workers lose jobs) than to resist new tech (and have all your workers lose jobs).

However, since the blank is prefaced by the idea of "resisting new tech", we'd probably complete that sentence like,

or .

1.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

  1. is less likely to dislocate

    Opposite

    We'd want to hear that resisting new tech is more likely to dislocate workers, since when we resist, all employees lose their jobs, whereas when we rapidly apply new tech, only "many employees" lose their jobs.

    7% picked this

  2. will affect only those who

    Too Strong / Contradicted: only

    Not only is this strong wording the opposite of the safely worded conclusion we're looking for, in this case it seems to contradict the passage. We were told that when a company resists new tech, it results in the loss of all the employees' jobs. So it sounds like it affects everyone, whether or not they possess technical skills.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    cannot prevent job loss in

    Why this is right

    This is derivable, since we were told that "firms that resist new tech will eventually be superseded by those that do not, resulting in the loss of all their employes' jobs. If something will eventually result in all employees losing their jobs, then it's fair to say it "doesn't prevent job loss in the long run". This is a weird answer because, although it's eminently provable from the 2nd sentence, it doesn't really involve the 1st sentence. Conversationally, it does, because the first sentence may have sounded like "Watch out -- when you apply new tech rapidly, many lose their jobs." And then the 2nd sentence is saying, "But ... it's not like you can prevent job loss in the long run. After all, when you resist new tech, you get superseded and all your employees lose their jobs".

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

    89% picked this

  4. eventually creates more jobs than

    Opposite

    We'd want to hear that resisting new tech eventually destroys more jobs than it creates, since when we resist, all employees lose their jobs, whereas when we rapidly apply new tech, only "many employees" lose their jobs.

    2% picked this

  5. must take priority over any

    Too Strong: must / any

    This is hyperbolic strength, which we are hoping to avoid. Plus, we're told that resisting new tech eventually leads to the loss of all the employee's jobs. Why would we conclude that "resisting new tech should be our #1 priority!"

    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