Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S3 · Q20 Engineer: Semiplaning monohulls are

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

Engineer: Semiplaning monohulls are a new kind of ship that can attain twice the speed of conventional ships.

Conclusion (thus)

Semiplaning monohull's will probably be profitable.

Evidence

Semiplaning monohull's are faster than conventional ships.

And even though it will be more expensive to travel on Semiplaning monohull's than on conventional ships, it was like that when jet airplanes first came out (they were more expensive than conventional planes), but jets were still able to be profitable (because they were faster and more reliable).

Evaluate

We're being asked about the 2nd sentence. Is it Main Conclusion, Support, Opposing, or Neutral?

The main conclusion is the last sentence, "Semiplaning monohull's will probably be profitable".

Is it support for that? Why will they be profitable? Because ... ?

No that doesn't make sense. When something costs more, all other things being equal, it will be less desirable in the marketplace.

So this is an Opposing idea.

The author is conceding a downside to Semiplaning monohull's, but then saying,

Goal

Let's look for something like, .

20.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the engineer's argument by the statement that transportation will be much more expensive on semiplaning monohulls than on traditional ships?

  1. It serves as one of

    Opposite

    This answer says this claim is playing the role of supporting the main conclusion. But we wanted something that sounded like opposing, counterpoint, concession. So we could distance ourselves from this on a first pass. Are there two analogies between SM's and jets? Depends how we interpret that language. There is one central analogy in the argument "What was true of jets is / will be true of semiplaning monohulls". That analogy has several levels, so I don't know if it's really fair to say each of those things is its own analogy. When SM's and jets debuted, they were both 1. faster than the conventional alternative 2. more expensive than conventional alternative And the author is assuming a 3rd analogy 3. SM's, just like jets, will still manage to turn a profit.

    16% picked this

  2. It draws an analogy between

    Ships vs. Jets

    If this answer replaced "ships" with "jets", it would be very tempting. There was no analogy drawn between SM's and conventional ships. Both the SM's and jets started off pricier than their competition. That's an objection to the conclusion that SM's will be profitable. The author doesn't reject the objection that SM's and jets are pricier. He acknowledges it. He just appeals to another part of the analogy between SM's and jets to outweigh that objection (customers will still be willing to pay to use them because they offer greater speed)

    5% picked this

  3. It draws a distinction between

    Opposite

    It does indeed draw a distinction between SM's and conventional ships (it's more expensive to travel on SM's), but that distinction does the opposite of support the conclusion. We were looking for opposing, counterpoint, concession.

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    It constitutes a potential objection

    Why this is right

    This resonates with our desire to find opposing, counterpoint, concession: it constitutes a potential objection Since the author concludes that SM's will probably be profitable, it's a potential objection to say, "Really? You know that it's more expensive to travel on SM's, right?" But the author goes on to counter this with an analogy .... Similarly (classic analogy indicator) Ships Airplanes SM's faster and Jets faster and more $$ more $$ than than conventional planes conventional SM's will still be Jets were desired enough to profitable? to still turn a profit

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

    62% picked this

  5. It draws a distinction between

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The argument does compare a distinction between characteristics of SM's and ships (the former is faster but more $$) to a distinction between jets and other planes (the former is faster but more $$). But that doesn't happen in the conclusion! The conclusion is just "SM's will probably be profitable as well". The main conclusion is stressing a sameness between SM's and jets. According to this answer, the conclusion is stressing a distinction between jets and other planes.

    12% 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