Q10 - Bernard: For which language

[ebrickm2]

I just think I don't plain understand what the stimulus said, it was a jumbled mess to me. HALP!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Glad to!

Bernard asks a question about the layout of keyboards. Basically, why are the letters arranged in the order they are?

Cora offers an explanation for why they are arranged the way they are. Cora says that they were originally designed to slow down the typist so that the keys won't jam in a typewriter.

Bernard says that this can't be the right explanation for why the keys are arranged the way they are, because we no longer have to worry about keys jamming in a typewriter.

We're asked to counter Bernard's objection to Cora's explanation. In other words, explain why Cora's explanation (for why the letters on the keyboard are arranged the way they are) could be correct. Answer choice (A) offers us a reason why Cora's explanation could be correct. If keyboards are sold to people who trained on the original design, and thus demand the original design, then maybe keys are arranged on modern keyboards the way they are because of conditions that no longer exist (keys jamming in typewriters).

Does that help? This one is a bit confusing and if you still need more help on just let me know!

[Greatsk8erman]

I am feeling as though I am having to "talk" and "convince" myself into accepting answer A. So obviously to counter Bernard's comment, Cora would have to say something to defend her comment that the original layout of the typewriter was designed to inhibit speed due to the parts clanging together inside the typewriter. I just don't see how A does any such job of explaining that??

Bernard rejected the reasoning behind the design of the typewriter, not the fact that it is still the same today as when the typewriter was invented, he agreed on that. If anything A is just agreeing with his statement that it is the same today as when it was invented, and doesn't seem to counter the rejection of WHY. She is still left unexplained on WHY. I mean that's great that its the same as it was back in the day, they already agree on that, but as far as I'm concerned, she still hasn't layed down any reason for Bernard to accept her reasoning.

Please correct me whereever possible, thanks!!

[geverett]

I chose B, but understand what Matt is saying.

Answer choice B is actually a very deceptive answer choice, because it's easy to throw in an assumption to answer choice B such as "hey it makes sense that replaced office equipment would retain similar key features because that would make the transition easier", but at the end of the day it's still an assumption you have to make and one that we do not have based on the information in the stimulus and the answer choice so it is wrong.

Notice that the assumption I tried to throw in was an attempt to make answer choice B answer the question of "why?" which is what answer choice A already does.

Tricky stuff.

[zainrizvi]

I'm still a bit confused as to the difference between "what" and "why" in (A) and (B). Can anyone explain why that is significant?

Doesn't (B) explain why this design has persisted, despite the fact the limitations have vanished? They have persisted due to the fact standard keyboard was inherited by word processing equipment...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The issue of "what" and "why" is pretty straightforward. The correct answer should help explain why the typewriter could have been designed to slow typers down and yet we still use the old typewriter layout. Answer choice (A) gives us that explanation - that typers are simply comfortable with that old layout.

Notice that answer choice (A) does a better job of telling us "why" typers would want to have the old layout. Answer choice (B) however does a pretty good job telling us what happened but not telling us why it happened. So what if word-processing replaced the older typewriters. We still have the issue of not knowing why configuration of the key has not changed since the technological limitations have disappeared.

Hope that helps, let me know though if you still have another question on this one!

[bigtree65]

B) "typewriters have been superseded by word processing equipment, Which has inherited the standard keyboard from typewriters"

It was inherited from the standard typewriter keyboard, doesn't that answer the why?

[ohthatpatrick]

(B) is tempting, because it does offer a reason why the typewriter today looks like it used to.

The problem is it doesn't really counter Bernard's objection to Cara's explanation.

Cara said that the original keyboard was designed to slow down people's typing speed, because if someone typed too fast the typebars would crash into each other, bending connecting wires.

Bernard says "Hogwash! If that were true, why wouldn't we have evolved past it by now?"

(B) tells us that word-processors use the same keyboard design as typewriters did.

This would only support Bernard's objection, not counter it.

He would say, "See? Word processors don't have typebars and connecting wires. So if the old keyboard design was inefficient, then why wouldn't we have amended it for word processors?"

What really need to hear, in order to counter Bernard's objection, is why we would keep the old keyboard design DESPITE its inefficient layout.

(A) gives us that reason. Consumers demand the old layout; that's why it's still around despite its inefficient layout.

(B) explains the modern keyboard's connection to the old layout, but doesn't offer a reason why the old layout persists.

(C) is knock against the standard keyboard layout. If it's hard to acquire skills at the standard layout, all the more reason to update it.

(D) strengthens Bernard's objection. If it's easy to learn a new style, why not update the keyboard layout?

(E) strengthens Bernard's objection. If technology allows for multiple layouts, why not add an updated, more efficient layout?

I hope this helps.

[ptewarie]

Just to elaborate:

So we are asked to show that ( just like in a paradox)
1. Cora's assertion still holds that typewriters were established to avoid them breaking
2. there is NOW another reason why people have same keyboards, which has NOTHING to do with its "functionality"

and lo and behold.. A holds true.

If A is true, then it shows that the only reason the keyboard exists the way it does today is because of popular demand. Thus, this does not in any way invalidated Cora's reasoning.

If A said: keyboards today are made the way they are because it is to ensure comfort for people, then this could prove that Cora's assertion might be wrong.


if B is true then this shows that the word processing equipment has inherited it the standard keyboard from typewriters, but we know that today the technological limitations Cora discussed( crashing typebard, bending connecting wires if typing fast) do NOT exist, that would mean there is ANOTHER reason why the typewriters were made the way they were

[gradycampion]

I also interpreted the question stem as Weaken. Is this correct? I think I chose B because of it. Though now I see that A is a better answer.

Can somebody clue me in on how to approach "which of the follow could be used to counter X" question types? Or, where can I find an explanation for them in MLR? Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think it's correct to interpret this as Weaken.

Weaken is normally phrased:
Which of the following, if true,
... most weakens
... most undermines
... casts the most doubt

So 'countering someone's argument' to me is synonymous with these aforementioned phrases.

I would approach these like I would Weaken, but the feel of these questions almost always has the same format:

i. Person 1 makes an argument for a given conclusion.

ii. Person 2 disagrees with a certain claim on the basis of some rebuttal premise.

iii. The correct answer shows how the rebuttal premise does not shoot down the disputed claim.

In this way, I think of these much like Resolve/Explain (as one of the previous posters also mentioned).

For this argument, I would get my mind ready for the answer choices by saying,
How is it possible that
i. the keyboard was purposefully designed with an inefficient layout, due to technological limitations
YET
ii. we're still using that inefficient layout even though the technological limitations have vanished?

(A) provides an answer to this paradox: people still demand the inefficient layout.

So in more generic terms, when doing these "how would person 1 best counter person 2's rebuttal?"

Say to yourself:
How is it possible that
Person 1's claim was correct
EVEN THOUGH
Person 2's rebuttal is true?

Hope this helps.

[ganbayou]

Hi, so Bernard is asking the reason why the key board is designed the way it looks??
I thought he is just asking about which language or which frequency etc, how can this sentence ask the reason why it is designed the way it is???
I know this is a basic grammar question, but since I did not understand the sentence I was totally confused by Cora's 1st answer and so on...

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

Have you ever noticed that you can't spell ANY words on a QWERTY keyboard by hitting adjacent keys?

Bernard has noticed.

Why wouldn't the most common words like 'the' or 'and' be made more convenient by putting 't', 'h', and 'e' next to each other?

The home keys are "asdf" and "jkl;". Why would THOSE be the homekeys?

The most commonly used letters are the vowels "a, e, i, o, u" and only one of them makes it into the homekeys.

Here's Bernard's hypothesis for why we have our seemingly random keyboard layout: maybe the keyboard was created by people who spoke a language other than English, so the arrangement of letters plays nicely with THAT language, and then we just started using the same design.

Cora's initial rebuttal is this: you're assuming that the arrangement of letters was MEANT to "play nicely" with that language. In fact, she says, the opposite was true. The keyboard was designed to NOT play nicely with English letter sequences. The reason for this is that if the keyboard were designed to work well with English words, people would type too fast, and the typebars would jam.

Bernard doesn't accept this. He's saying, "that can't be the reason for the layout. After all, we don't even use typebars anymore on actual computer keyboards and yet we still have the layout."

In order for Cora to convince Bernard that she really DID provide the correct reason, she now needs to give Bernard a reason that we would continue to have this un-friendly keyboard layout even though we no longer have to worry about typebars jamming.

The reason we still have the un-friendly keyboard layout (even though we don't need it anymore) is ....

(A) ... that people already learned the old one and so they only buy stuff that has the old layout.

None of the other answers give a reason why we still have the un-friendly layout, even though our current technology would allow for a friendlier layout.

Hope this helps.

[donghai819]

No one mentions the causation in this question but I believe that it is essentially causation here.

Bernard asks the cause of the effect (distribution of keyboard), implying that he assumes that there is a causation (#1).
(if diagram, it would be: "cause" => layout of keyboard)

Cora doesn't buy Bernard's causation and Cora dismisses Bernard's causation by refuting Bernard's assumption. Cora actually believes another causation (#2).
(if diagram, Cora's argument would be: making typing slow down => layout of keyboard)

However, Bernard is kind of a tough guy; he doesn't buy Cora's claim either -- he provides some alternative explanation (limitations are gone, but the layout is kept) to discredit the connection between Cora's cause and Cora's effect.

So Cora probably has to connect her cause and effect by providing something that would overrides Bernard's explanation.

[williamkazenas]

In my opinion, (A) more or less comes out and states the inference I was making from (B).

(A) explicitly says people "demand" this product because they had already "learned to use the standard keyboard."

(B) almost says the same thing (it inherited the standard keyboard from typewriters...) AND THEN most of us would take that extra step and assume "ah ok the manufacturer didn't change anything because there was a demand for the old keyboard style which everyone was already used to." Except that wasn't stated, you were only led to believe this because that's clearly what B was insinuating.

sneaky sneaky

To me, A and B essentially say the same thing but (B) makes me take that one extra step that A doesn't.

[LsatCrusher822]

I'd also add that for B, the answer choice only says that "typewriters have been superceded in most offices..." Now this means the scope of the answer choice is limited to most offices. What about the other places keyboards are used? (I.e., schools, homes, restaurants, etc.) If B said "Typewriters have been superseded in most places keyboards are used..." this would be a serious contender.

A is better due to "typically" (i.e., most of the time) and the verb "demand." Even if you were stuck between A or B, these indicators in A should have been clear indicators of why its better than B. B's main verb is "superceded" which just explains what happened (per the discussion written in this message chain. "Demand" shows us why the keyboard is the way it is.