Q10 - History provides many examples of technological

[jlz1202]

Could anyone please explain why A is correct? I cross off A immediately as I think "job loss" is out of scope then and choose D. The choices are somewhat unlike regular choices of strengthening questions. It does not seem help strengthen the reasoning!!

Thanks in advance!

[kylelitfin]

This is the first trap question of the section. Look at questions 8 and 9, they both contain lengthy stimuli and fairly lengthy answer choices. However, both of the questions previously were fairly simple once you read through everything. So what did the LSAT writers do? They throw in a really small stimulus right after that hinges on a small phrase "comfort or safety" - in addition to throwing in a bit of sociology on us with "social inertia".

Here is the argument:
History has shown us that people have benefitted, in regards to working conditions, from the very technological innovations they resisted.

Conclusion: Social inertia is a stronger force determining human behavior than the desire for comfort or safety.

So what does that conclusion mean? That people resist technological innovations out of habit. It's something they have always resisted and will continue to do so even though their working conditions have improved because of these innovations.

How do we weaken this? Well via pre-phrasing, you should now be looking for something that shows that people have resisted technological innovations out of the desire for comfort or safety.

A). Job loss? That's pretty much the quintessential attack of ones comfort and safety. What good are improved working conditions to those that were laid off? Thus, if you adopt this stance you disprove the conclusion: social inertia is not the main cause in peoples resistance to technological innovation, it's job loss, a direct assault on their comfort and safety.

You chose D, so let's look at why that choice is wrong:

D.) For this to weaken the stimulus, there would have to be something stated in the stimulus indicating that the innovations in question were brought on very quickly. The stimulus provides no timeline. The innovations in question could have been unleashed over decades - you have no way of knowing. Therefore, it's out of scope and should be eliminated.

Hopefully this helps! Good luck!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation kylelitfin! You've nailed it.

For others who might read later, I'll also go through the other incorrect answers.

We're asked to weaken the reasoning of the argument which seeks to offer as a conclusion an explanation (inertia is a more powerful determinant of human behavior than the desire for comfort or safety) for something that one has observed (resistance to technological innovations). This is actually a very common structure on Strengthen and Weaken questions.

To undermine their explanation, we can offer an alternative explanation. It's not that they've resisted this change for reasons of inertia, but rather as answer choice (A) suggests, because they know that it leads to some negative consequence - job loss!

So remember to not be afraid of new information on Strengthen/Weaken questions. Often that new information adds something to the picture that wasn't initially considered that makes the argument stronger or weaker depending on the task.

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(B) would require an additional assumption that technological innovations represent new challenges, which simply cannot be supported. In fact, it sounds like this technological innovations that make life more comfortable and safe, may represent a benefit rather than a challenge.
(C) is consistent with the original argument that only suggests that "many" (some) technological innovations have been resisted.
(D) actually supports the conclusion about inertia being a powerful force.
(E) is irrelevant. So while new information isn't necessarily bad, it does still need to be relevant. Increased productivity does not represent an alternative to inertia for resisting new technological innovations.

Hope that helps!

[asafezrati]

I don't really understand what does the author mean by "social inertia". Do the people want things in society to stay the same? Isn't an aspiration that the number of jobs remains the same fits that idea?

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks asafezrati!

I think you’re onto something about the definition of social inertia – it involves clinging to some present state of affairs— but I don’t quite think job loss falls into this category. The author implies that social inertia is the strong resistance to some new innovation, as discussed in the first premise. The loss of jobs isn’t quite a new innovation, so in that sense it is different. More importantly, the author contrasts social inertia with the “desire for comfort and safety.” Job security fits squarely into that desire.

Best,
Rina