Logical Reasoning

PT9 · S4 · Q8 A translation invariably reflects

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

A translation invariably reflects the writing style of the translator.

Conclusion

For long documents that need to be translated quickly, computer translation programs are better than human translators.

Evidence

Multi-translator human jobs produce stylistically inconsistent results. Computer programs are faster, produce stylistically uniform translations, and have an 80% accuracy rate.

Evaluate

Because the conclusion is making a recommendation (but doesn't have a clearly defined goal), we judge it the way we just generic "should-recommendations", by comparing Upsides vs. Downsides.

The recommendation is to go with the computer translation. Upsides: stylistically uniform, faster

We need to consider whether there are downsides of the computer translation (or, equivalently, upsides to the human translation option).

Potential downside: 80% accuracy

Do human translators do better than 80% accuracy? If so, do we care more about higher accuracy or more about fast / stylistically uniform?

Goal

Four answers will raise issues that matter to the argument. The correct answer is the one that does not matter. On Evaluate, we basically listen for issues that could potentially weaken.

So we would listen for answers that could bring up something that would allow us to argue that the human translators are actually the better option (or at least as good an option).

Let's listen for any comparative upsides/downsides between computer vs. human translator.

Which one of the following issues would be LEAST important to resolve in evaluating the argument?

whether the problem of stylistic
Opposite
If giving stylistic guidelines could fix the human-translator inconsistency problem, then one of the author's main reasons to prefer computers (uniform style) loses its bite. This is essentially asking, "is there a viable way to remove one of the downsides of human translation?"
14% picked this
whether numerical comparisons of the
Opposite
The argument cites an 80% accuracy rate for computers as a key piece of evidence. But if numerical accuracy comparisons cannot reasonably be made between methods (or even meaningfully described), the 80% number is meaningless and the entire accuracy claim falls apart. It's a very weird answer, because the sense in which it could weaken would be by invaliding one of the author's premises. I would have kept this on a first pass and only eliminated it because saying "hey, author, it's impossible to make a numerical comparison of the accuracy of the translation" does feel like somewhat of a counterpunch.
18% picked this
Correct
whether computer translation programs, like
Why this is right
Whether computer translators do or don't have their own distinct writing style is a moot point. The first sentence tells us that ANY translation will reflect the writing style of the translator. So whether we use a computer or a human, the translator's style will be reflected. The advantage of using the computer vs. a team of human translators is that you'll only have one writing style reflected ("stylistically uniform translation") as opposed to a variety of styles. Whether different computer programs each have their own distinct style is irrelevant — only one program is doing the job, so its output will be uniform regardless of how it compares to other programs' styles.
Skill tested: Evaluate · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
63% picked this
whether the computer translation contains
Opposite
This definitely gives us a way to weaken. If we say, "Hey, author the 20% of computer translations that are errors consists of stuff that drastically alters the meaning of the text." That sounds like a HUGE downside for using a computer translator. More than anything, we're trying to preserve the original meaning of the text.
2% picked this
how the accuracy rate of
Opposite
The argument cites an 80% accuracy rate for computers but never tells us how accurate human translators are or what level of accuracy users actually need. If humans translate at 95% and users need >90%, computers are inadequate; if humans translate at 60% and users need 70%+, computers win. We don't know whether the computer's 80% accuracy rate compares favorably or unfavorably to that of humans, so we need to know the human accuracy rate in order to judge whether that 80% is an upside or a downside of using a computer translator.
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