Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q14 A new computer system

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 new computer system will not significantly increase an organization's efficiency unless the computer system requires the organization's employees to adopt new, more productive ways of working.

Setup Information

conditional (X will not unless Y) X requires Y = X → Y

Significantly comp system requires increasing → employees to adopt efficiency new ways of working

specific fact - The Ministry's new computer system is built to fit its employees existing ways of working.

The Blank (so)

We need to draw a logical conclusion, so we think of this like a Most Supported inference question.

Evaluate

On Inference, whenever we're given a conditional, we ask ourselves two things: 1. Am I supposed to be chaining this up with some other conditional? 2. Am I supposed to be applying this rule to a specific fact?

The first sentence was conditional, but the second sentence is a specific fact, so we would more likely be doing #2.

Typically, when we are tested on our ability to apply a conditional to a fact, we have to contrapose the conditional to understand how it applies (or we ask ourselves about what Overlapping Concept is in both the rule and the fact).

The overlapping concept between the 1st and 2nd sentence is .

When we contrapose the rule from the first sentence, we get:

If new computer system then won't doesn't require employees → signif increase to adopt new ways of working efficiency

Goal

We were told that the MoT's new computer system does not require employees to adopt new ways (it was custom built to fit their existing ways), so it triggers this conditional and yields this logical conclusion/inference:

The Ministry of Transportation's new computer system will not significantly increase the ministry's efficiency.

Let's look for something like that.

14.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

  1. Correct

    the new computer system will

    Why this is right

    We were looking for this: The Ministry of Transportation's new computer system will not significantly increase the ministry's efficiency. So this seems like what we wanted (the output you get from applying the rule in the 1st sentence to the fact in the 2nd sentence). Is "won't increase to any appreciable degree" the same as "will not significantly increase"? Yes! A significant increase is an appreciable one. Insignificant is synonymous with negligible. Some of us may have savings or checking accounts that increase by an insignificant/negligible amount of interest each year (a few dollars).

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

    83% picked this

  2. it is likely that the

    Out of Scope: malfunction

    Nothing in the passage presents any possibility of malfunctioning.

    1% picked this

  3. the leaders of the Ministry

    Causal Speculation

    This answer goes one thought farther than the derivable inference. The derivable inference is that, "This new system won't increase productivity/efficiency". This answer tries to speculate why we would use such a system. Did the leaders choose to go with this new system because they're not concerned with efficiency? Because it was the only system they could afford? Because they needed to do a favor for the manufacturer of the system? We have no idea. We can't speculate the backstory of why the ministry is installing a system that won't significantly boost efficiency (maybe they're already very efficient!)

    5% picked this

  4. the new computer system will

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: automating Too Strong: will be Nothing in the passage talks about automating jobs that used to be done manually, so we can't derive any language like that from the two sentences we have available. This is a very strong idea, as well, which proves the system will be worthwhile, as long as it succeeds in automating many processes.

    7% picked this

  5. it will be easy for

    Too Strong: easy One-Claim Support

    Can we say that "because the system is built to fit the ministry's existing ways of working" that it will be easy to learn? No. It's reasonable to speculate that it will be easier to learn this new system than if the system hadn't been custom built to fit their needs. But no matter how good a computer system is, when you install a new computer system at work, there are usually hiccups and confusion and a learning curve for the employees, so calling it "easy" to learn seems pretty bold. We should also be nervous to pick this answer because we'd be supporting it using only the 2nd claim. On 99% or more of Inference questions (be they Must Be True, Most Supported, or Logical Completion), the correct answer involves combining 2 or more claims.

    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