Q20 - There are two ways to manage

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let's start with the first issue. The stimulus isn't an argument. Rather, it's a series of facts. Those facts appear to conflict, but we're asked to show how they're perfectly consistent with each other. In order to explain this strange apparent inconsistency, we need to provide new information: something that previously had not been considered.

A bigger issue you're encountering is actually very common. I think what's going on is that you're taking the mind set appropriate for an Inference question or Necessary Assumption question when you should be taking the mind set more similar to that of strengthening and weakening. For Strengthening/Weakening/Explain information that sheds new light on the subject is typical in a correct answer. In Necessary Assumption/Inference it's more typical that the correct answer strictly deal with the information contained in the stimulus. New information is likely to wrong here.

It's okay that the answer choice discusses something out of left field. While this would be a disaster for an Inference question or Necessary Assumption question, it's actually just what the doctor ordered for an Explain the Result question

The two statements that we need to reconcile are
1. Continuous maintenance makes for better economic sense.
2. Continuous maintenance almost never happens

(A) says why it would be difficult to organize radical reconstruction, but not why it would be difficult to organize regular maintenance.
(B) doesn't affect our perception of the two statements. This answer choice doesn't give us any clue why regular maintenance almost never happens.
(C) provides an additional benefit to regular maintenance making it all the more confusing why people almost never do it.
(D) says why we might want to avoid radical reconstruction projects, but not why we avoid regular maintenance.
(E) tells us that over long periods we simply lack the urgency to maintain regular programs. Answer choice (E) is correct.

Let me know if you need me to elaborate on what I was discussing at the beginning. Having the correct mind set will make a big difference.


#officialexplanation

[nazu.s.shaikh]

Before I go on to explain the question, I'd like to point out something, in the same section (3) question 13 I feel like mirrors the same logic as 20 does. I was hoping I could get some clarification on that as well.

Number 20 states: There are two ways to manage an existing transportation infrastructure: continuous maintenance at adequate levels, and periodic radical reconstruction. Continuous maintenance dispenses with the need for radical reconstruction, and radical reconstruction is necessitated by failing to preform continuous maintenance. Over the long run, continuous maintenance is far less expensive, nevertheless it almost never happens.

Which one of the following, if true, most contributes to an explanation of why the first alternative is almost never adopted?

I understand what the question is asking me to do however when choosing the best answer through process of elimination, am I too take a leap in logic and assume outside of the argument presented? Im having a hard time answering these types of questions because the information presented in the argument, for me at least, doesn't seem to support the answer choices listed below?

For example, one of the choices b) says " when funds for transportation infrastructure maintenance are scarce, they are typically distributed in proportion to the amount of traffic that is home by different elements of the infrastructure"

What supporting evidence do I have in the argument that allows me to say " hey you know what, this explains why the alternative is never adopted" How do I know this if there is no information about traffic provided ?

Hopefully I didn't confuse anyone with this.

Long story short Q20; I'm having a hard time understanding how to go about answering this question.

[nazu.s.shaikh]

That makes perfect sense, it really cleared up a lot of tangled webs. One thing though I'd like to ask is when we're asked to bring in a new information that would explain/strengthen/weaken a question, how do we choose an answer that stays within the realm of the facts? How do we know that the best answer won't break the link between the facts?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That is a serious concern. I think that so long as the answer choice doesn't contradict one of the statements in the stimulus you'll be okay.

I think the more difficult task will be seeing whether the new information is relevant. Because it's out of left field, it may not seem to have any bearing.

[bradleygirard]

the way that I have approached it is to pay very careful attention to the question stem. Many of the stems will have the words "if true" in them, but you have to pay close attention as to which ones are referring to the stimulus, and which ones are referring to the answer choice. So in a question like #20, it says which answer choice, if true,... means that you have to approach each one as if it were fact and see how it squares up with the stimulus and reaches the desired goal, in this case an explanation of why the continuous maintenance never happens. In terms of knowing how it stays within the realm of the facts, I never really worry about that, knowing that they are all assumed to be true you just need to figure out not how factual it is but how it weakens/strengthens/resolves/etc.
hopefully this helps.

[kmewmewblue]

I think I understand the first part of (E) "For long periods, the task of regular maintenance lacks urgency," but what does "since the consequesnces of neglecting it are very slow to manifest themselves?" slow to manifest? What does it mean?
Advice please.
Thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think I understand the first part of (E) "For long periods, the task of regular maintenance lacks urgency," but what does "since the consequesnces of neglecting it are very slow to manifest themselves?" slow to manifest? What does it mean?

It simply means that the consequences of not having regular maintenance are slow to appear.

Good luck with your prep!

[ldanny24]

Hi, I'm still not too sure as to why (C) is incorrect.

I read C as saying

If continuous maintenance is performed poorly then the need for radical reconstruction will often arise later compared to if radical construction were done (whereby we would not need to undergo continuous maintenance).

I can definitely see this as an explanation since it's like saying, "why go through the trouble of doing continuous maintenance when there's a risk of doing it poorly only to end up doing radical reconstruction anyways?" kinda like a let's be safe rather than sorry kind of thing.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I totally get your thought process. Why waste good money if there's a chance that we'll get the continuous maintenance wrong and need to undergo radical reconstruction anyway?

However, I see answer choice (C) as making it more confusing why continuous maintenance almost never happens. If we can get benefits from continuous maintenance at less-than-adequate levels, wouldn't that induce people to use continuous maintenance and then do it on the cheap?

Answer choice (E) though does help explain why continuous maintenance almost never happens. And this answer choice is one that plays off our intuition about why it's hard to invest early to avoid radical reconstruction. People have a tendency to not deal with something until it becomes a pressing matter.

Does that address your issue with answer choice (C)?

[tnblake10]

So this is one of my first times posting an answer to one of those but Idanny I don't know if this might help your confusion but I originally chose C along with your same line of thinking ("If using continuous maintenance could lead to radical anyways, why not just use radical to begin with). But then i went back to the stimulus and realized that it says "continuous maintenance at adequate levels" while C discusses "continuous maintenance at less-than-adequate levels". While this distinction is small, since C is referring to a bad effect of less than adequate continuous maintenance it can't be used to answer a question about why people still wouldn't choose continuous maintenance at adequate levels over radical reconstruction.
Hope this helps.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great point tnblake10!

[bsd987]

I found another reason (C) is wrong is that it contradicts the premises, so therefore it cannot possibly be true.

CM > not RR
Not CM > RR ("is necessitated by")

He never throws in levels of adequacy or anything like that (as has already been discussed), but that also makes it impossible that having CM, even inadequate, could lead to RR, without contradicting his premises, and we must accept the premises as true. Whether it is a valid premise is irrelevant; it is true per the argument. Thus (C) is incorrect.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I found another reason (C) is wrong is that it contradicts the premises, so therefore it cannot possibly be true.

I'm not so certain about that! I'd love to hear from others, but I think that answer choice (C) is consistent with the argument. We know that radical reconstruction is necessitated by the failure to perform continuous maintenance. But it doesn't specify in the argument how much sooner radical reconstruction will be needed according to the various degrees of insufficient funding.

I think answer choice (C) is possible, but it wouldn't explain why continuous maintenance almost never happens.

[daijob]

Hi,

Just wanted to double check...
So is E saying that people are lazy and they do not make action until it becomes a problem?
I thought since it says "continuous maintenance" it is a regular thing, and even they are lazy or "lacks urgency," they have to do it. If not, it would not be a continuous maintenance and thought it contradicts the definition and does not make a sense.
So that's why I was confused with E...but people can not make action even it is a regular thing?

Thanks,

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think you’re just being too literal with “continuous maintenance” meaning that you can never stop maintaining.

Use the context of what's being talked about to have a more common sense idea of what continuous maintenance would represent.

For example, continuous maintenance of my dental hygiene means that I brush twice a day. Between morning and night I'm not doing ANYTHING to maintain my teeth, but we would still say that my brushing habits represent continuous maintenance of my teeth.

(Radical reconstruction would mean letting my teeth rot and fall out and then getting new fake teeth)

Continuous maintenance of my car means that I get an oil change every 5000 miles or few months. So "continuous" here sounds like I only need to do something a couple times a year.

Continuous maintenance of infrastructure (roads, bridges, train tracks, etc.) is probably on an even longer timescale.

But it's safe to assume that no one is talking about working on a road / bridge 24 hours a day to maintain it.

I sympathize that the question could be written better .. I would rather them say "preventative maintenance", as it would mean the same thing but not sound as confusing.

Preventative maintenance is the idea that you get something tuned up BEFORE you ever actually see a serious problem with it.

I think that's what they mean by continuous maintenance.