Q12 - Economist: Technology now changes

[gplaya123]

I got this question right.
This question was fairly easy bc:

Premise: Efficient -> Allows meet short term needs
---
conclusion: Large company -> ~Efficient.

If you play with these,
you get:

<Large company -> ~Allow meet short term needs> REQUIRED
~Allow meet short term needs -> ~Efficient (Contrapositive)
---
Large company -> ~Efficient

So you get D.

Yet I have a hard time eliminating B.
I mean I know it's an incorrect answer because... it just doesn't sound right?
I want to have a solid reason to eliminate B.

Let's do the negation test: Large job retraining programs won't be less efficient than smaller programs if the pace of tech. changes slow.

Hmm... does this hurt the conclusion? I am not sure...
HELP!

[ohthatpatrick]

Nice work with logic of the valid answer.

I can give you a couple reasons to not like (B):

1. "less efficient" is comparative. No language in the argument was comparative. Thus, there's no reason the author had to assume anything comparative.

LSAT loves to create trap answers based on the distinction between absolute vs. relative qualities.

The 2nd sentence of the argument is about the absolute quality of "whether or not training is efficient". This is completely separate from the issue of "which training is more efficient ... which training is most efficient ... etc."

The conclusion, also, is trying to label large govt. job retraining as inefficient, not "less efficient".

2. "Smaller programs" were never brought up, so this is out of scope and hence the author doesn't have to assume anything about them.

The 2nd sentence says that
IF efficient, THEN allows individual companies to meet short-term needs.

It's perfectly possible that no training option (including smaller programs) would ever allow companies to meet short-term needs. i.e., it's possible that NO retraining program, no matter the size, is viable in terms of efficiency.

Hope this helps.

[hayleychen12]

I got this one right out of instinct.

But after made mistakes on PT11 S2 Q5 the other day, I have this rather weird question concerning this question:

Premises: Retraining be efficient → allows individual companies to meet their own short-term needs.

Conclusion: Large governmental job ~efficient.

I feel like that D actually is a sufficient condition for the conclusion to follow,: ~meet short-term needs → large governmental job ~ efficient.
However this is a Necessary Question right?
Am I overthinking to much?

Any help will be appreciated!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't matter.

If you dial in the assumption perfectly, then it will be necessary and sufficient.

We could say,
"The coat costs $40. Thus, Joe has enough cash to buy the coat."

Nec, but not Suff
"Joe has at least $1 in cash"

Suff, but not Nec
"Joe has $50 in cash"

Nec and Suff
"Joe has at least $40 in cash"