Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q19 Productivity growth in industrialized nations

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

Productivity growth in industrialized nations has dropped substantially since computer technology became widespread in the 1960s and 1970s.

Conclusion (Thus)

A business that has increased its reliance on computer technology probably has not improved its productivity growth by doing so.

Evidence

Since computer tech became widespread in the 60s and 70s, productivity growth in industrialized nations has dropped.

And it's dropped the most in industries that rely most heavily on computer technology.

Evaluate

This conclusion has an Anti-Causal vibe. It's saying that using more computer tech probably didn't cause your productivity to increase.

Anti-Causal, just like causal, arguments are interpreting curious background facts.

Curious Fact ... What does it mean that productivity was dropped since computers came on the scene, dropping the most in computer heavy industries?

Author's Interpretation ... It means that computer technology isn't good for productivity. Computer technology seems to be hurting these industries that rely most heavily on it.

Could there be some Alternate Explanation for the curious fact? Maybe the industries that rely most heavily on computer technology have some variables in their industry that limit productivity growth, but those variables aren't directly connected to use of computer technology. (For example, maybe the industries that rely most heavily on computer technology are concentrated in Silicon Valley and Seattle and those cities have tax laws or business atmospheres that limit productivity growth).

Can we hurt the Plausibility of the author's interpretation? She's assuming that computer tech hasn't been good for businesses who have increased their reliance on computer tech, but maybe there is some evidence that it has?

There is a Relative vs. Absolute switch happening within the argument that may be tested. The conclusion is about businesses that increased their reliance on computer tech (this could be a small farm that was previously 5% reliant on computers and now is 10% reliant). The evidence is about industries that are most reliant on computer tech. That small farmer is not among that group. So the evidence is potentially about a different group of businesses than the conclusion is.

Goal

Look for a way to debunk the author's interpretation of the curious fact (either via an alternate explanation for why computer-reliant industries have had dropping productivity or via something that hurts the plausibility that computer technology has itself been harming productivity),

or look for a way to argue the Anti-Conclusion, that .

19.

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

The industries that rely most
Unclear Impact
This seems tempting, like an Alternate Explanation for why computer industries have struggled with productivity: It's not the computer technology, it's the inefficiencies. But, what inefficiencies? Do they relate to computer technology? It's hard to know whether this actually counts as an Alternate Explanation because it may be referring to inefficiencies caused by reliance on computer technology.
11% picked this
Productivity growth in many less
No Impact
We already knew that productivity growth had dropped in industrialized nations. Now we also know that it dropped in many less industrialized nations. Some people may have seen this as an Effect w/o Cause weakener (the effect of 'dropping productivity' is present even though the cause of 'computer tech' is absent, if we make an assumption that less industrialized nations have less computer tech). But the curious fact the author is really leaning on is that, amongst all that broad drop in productivity (something was more or less affecting everyone's productivity), there was a more concentrated spike in industries that are most reliant on computers, suggesting that something about reliance on computers exacerbates the productivity drop. We could make this answer start to feel relevant if it said, "Within less industrialized nations, the industries that relied most heavily on computer technology saw the smallest drops in productivity".
7% picked this
Productivity growth in industries responsible
No Impact: producing computer tech
This almost feels like a Cause w/o Effect weakener. The cause of "computer tech" is present but the effect of "dropping productivity" is absent. In fact productivity is through the roof! But industries responsible for producing computer tech are not necessarily industries that rely most heavily on computer tech. Toyota produces automobile technology. Postmates relies heavily on automobile technology. The conclusion is all about businesses increasing their usage of computers, not their manufacturing of computers.
11% picked this
Correct
Within any given industry, the
Why this is right
This pretty much body slams the conclusion. The conclusion has a very pessimistic take on investing in computer technology: "businesses that did so probably didn't improve their productivity growth". If we suddenly said, "The businesses with the greatest productivity growth are the ones that invested most heavily in computer technology", that would definitely be a huge counterpunch. This piece of data heavily suggests that heavily investing in computer technology was good for productivity. If we were trying to categorize this answer, we could say that it is helping us argue the Anti-Conclusion. It's presenting data points that seem to go against the author's conclusion. And we could say that it speaks most to the shift between evidence that was about Silicon Valley companies (rely most heavily - Absolute) and a conclusion that was about small farmers trying to modernize (increase reliance on computer technology - Relative).
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
68% picked this
Within the next few years,
No Impact: future tense
This is forward looking, but the author's conclusion is in the present perfect, which means it includes the past up until the present. We can only dispute the truth of the author's conclusion by talking about the past. You can't dispute the truth of "Racism has been a problem in America" by saying, "Within the next few decades, we'll be eradicating it".
3% 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