Q22 - A recent study confirms that nutritious breakfasts

[dan]

Strengthen questions are actually very similar to assumption questions. Let's outline the ideal thought process for this question:

1. Read the question stem.
This is a strengthen question, so I need to find the core of the argument first.

2. Find the argument core (premise --> conclusion).
A received free breakfast, B did not + A's productivity increased, B's did not --> nutritious breakfast makes workers more productive

This is the argument core, and this is where our focus needs to be.

3. Evaluate the logic of the core (what assumptions are made). We see there are many many problems with this argument, and we should begin to think about what they are
i. Assumes that A's actually ate the breakfasts they received.
ii. Assumes that B's not receiving free breakfast means they did not eat nutritious breakfasts on their own.
iii. Assumes that increase in A's productivity wasn't caused by something other than a nutritious breakfast.

There are plenty of assumptions made by the argument -- we've prepared for the choices by evaluating the logic and contemplating some of the gaps in the logic. We don't have to think of everything, just get a sense for why the argument is flawed.

4. To strengthen the argument, choose an answer that makes an assumption true. Assumptions strengthen the argument.

Answer (A) is very similar to assumption iii from above. It doesn't fix everything that's wrong with the argument, but it helps by eliminating the possibility that B's ate nutritious breakfasts as well.

Answer (C) is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the core of the argument. Looking back at the conclusion of our argument core, we see the argument is about INCREASING productivity. It makes no difference whatsoever if A and B started with the same productivity or different productivity.

The answer is (A).

If there's any doubt left about (C), consider these two scenarios:

SCENARIO #1:
A's starting productivity: 10 units
B's starting productivity: 100 units

A's ending productivity: 15 units
B's ending productivity: 100 units

They started with drastically different productivities, yet we can still say A's increased but B's didn't.

SCENARIO#2:
A's starting productivity: 10 units
B's starting productivity: 10 units

A's ending productivity: 15 units
B's ending productivity: 10 units

This time they started with the same productivities, but A's still increased and B's didn't.

If the issue is whether a plant's productivity increases relative to where it started, then it makes no difference where the other plant started.

Make sense?

[ReadingNation]

Dan ... thanks for taking the time to respond back ... your response was thorough and I appreciate that ... I could see why (C) hooked me in initially but I also see why (A) is stronger ...

However, if you could bear with me through one more session ... if I were sitting next to you in person I would definitely concede that (A) was right and that (A) was stronger than (C) but I wouldn't be ready to concede that (C) was irrelevant

Right now I'm in a land of paradox : ) I agree with you in principle ... If the issue is whether a plant's productivity increases relative to where it started, then it makes no difference where the other plant started ... yet I'm not willing to concede that (C) falls under that umbrella ... the reason is that the argument is presuming that the workers in Plant B are capable of reaching higher levels of productivity ... if B is not capable of reaching higher levels of productivity, then based on the evidence given, the argument in this stimulus is mute ... to me, (C) helped ease some of those fears ... if Plant A and B had the same amount of productivity the month beforehand and Plant A's productivity improved, then it would imply that Plant B's productivity was also capable of improving even though it didn't ... (of course, even in this situation you would still have to assume a couple of things, Plant A and Plant B were performing similar kinds of work and the workers in Plant A and Plant B were equally or similarly matched in terms of potential work capabilities) ... in any case I definitely concede your point that I over-thought (C) but I also wanted to explain why I didn't feel that (C) was irrelevant and hopefully in the process clear up any misconceptions that potentially could still mislead me ... I would love to hear what you think and once again thank you for your help... I look forward to hearing from you ...

[dan]

Thanks for the reply! Seems like you see A as correct but would like some more discussion on C. If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying that C helps us know that plant B is actually capable of improving. Let's take another example:

My 10 year-old niece can bench-press a maximum of 35 pounds (maybe it's a low number for her because she's young and doesn't have the muscle-mass necessary to lift more). I can bench-press a max of 35 pounds as well (maybe it's so low for me because I have bad technique). Through training and coaching I can improve. Does the fact that my initial number happens to match hers make it any more likely that she'll be able to improve? No! She's 10 -- she can't lift anymore than that, regardless of what I can lift and regardless of my ability to improve.

We're getting a bit sidetracked here, but the fact that the plants had equal productivities one month earlier gives us no relevant information with regard to whether nutritious breakfasts improve productivity. Even if we did need to show that B had the potential to improve, equal productivities the month before doesn't get us there.

Does that help?

[pinkdatura]

Hi, Dan. I really like your explanation! I finally can explain to myself why I feel so weird attacking this question--there are so many gaps and flaws in one argument.
C and E both deals with equal starting points of A and B, which is irrelevant with "increasing" stuff
I am wondering B and D each seems talks about alternative factors about productivity: for B: two Plants' workers have the same workload "working the same time of day, no night shifts stuff etc), D: Plant A workers have a heavier workload by taking less vacation. Especially answer choice D mentions during the experiment month, A works harder than B, but achieving higher productivity, will it strengthen the argument by though more workload, breakfast did have a huge effect on productivity? Or it simply can be dismissed by assuming longer working hours resulting in productivity? Or to say A has been always having such a busy schedule, not a particular change in this month, in this sense no effect on the argument?
Thank you

[james.jonathan.wong]

I don't mean to butt in, but we can mark B/D off as irrelevant because they both add assumptions that are not part of the author's argument. The author's leap from the premises to the conclusion DOES require us to think/assume that group B did not have some source of NB, while both C/E "add" in other assumptions (working at the same time/having vacation days) that are not present in the stim's argument.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Here's a closer look at the answer choices, as there seems to be some confusion on this.

(A) strengthens the argument by ruling out something that would undermine the argument. If the workers at plant B were eating nutritious breakfasts, and yet there productivity had not gone up, this would have undermined the argument. Think of this answer choice as playing defense.
(B) is tempting but the progress in plant A is relative to plant A, not to plant B. So we're measuring improved productivity and not comparatively more or less productivity between the two plants.
(C) doesn't help and is one of the few clearly wrong answers. This answer choice is simply irrelevant.
(D) is tempting, but this actually undermines the argument, by offering an alternative hypothesis for why the productivity could have increased. Rather than nutritious breakfasts, this answer choice suggests that it could be the fewer vacation days.
(E) is another comparison between the plants rather than a relative claim about whether plant A or plant B increased.

Does that help clear this one up?

[joseph.m.kirby]

Claim: Nutritious breakfasts make workers more productive.

Evidence: For 1 month, workers at Plant A received a free nutritious breakfast, workers at Plant B did not (receive a free nutritious breakfast). The productivity of workers at Plant A increased, the productivity of workers at Plant B did not.

(A) Correct. Strengthens the correlation. Where the cause is absent, or in this case, limited, (the proportion of workers eating a nutritious breakfast), the effect is absent or limited (no increase of productivity).
(B) Incorrect. Irrelevant. Productivity refers to work performed per unit of time. So, work start time is not relevant.
(C) Incorrect. Irrelevant. We are looking for an increase of A relative to B; thus, whether these two were equal at any point is out of scope.
(D) Incorrect. Out of scope. Are we to assume that people who take vacations only take one week or a couple days and then come back refreshed and more productive? Are we to assume that when someone goes on vacation, another employee has to do that person's work along with the status quo? Are we to assume that before employees go on vacation, they are just as productive or even more productive? With this answer choice, we have to ask many questions and make just as many assumptions; and in the end, depending on the assumptions made, this answer could weaken or strengthen.
(E) Incorrect. This answer doesn't necessarily weaken or strengthen the argument. We are looking for an increase of A relative to B (not that A and B were equal or that one was higher than the other).

[gplaya123]

I've read all the posts a several times but still don't understand why C wouldn't strengthen the argument...

Ok. When I read the argument, the first thing popped in my mind was "ok, the author is making a causal argument, where the nutritious food were the actual factor that caused the workers to be more productive."
So I thought that anything that could reinforce this causal relationship would be the answer.
There are many ways to achieve such thing and eliminating alternative cause is one of the ways.
Thus, I thought C actually eliminated the alternative cause: since both A and B had relatively same productivity prior to the experiment, in turn, this is actually saying that the it was the in fact the healthy breakfast, not things like better equipments or advanced machines, was the actual cause.

Am I missing something? I mean I do know that the conclusion is not talking about relative increase between A and B; I simply think that C is a strengthener for eliminating alternative cause.

Please help!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Thus, I thought C actually eliminated the alternative cause: since both A and B had relatively same productivity prior to the experiment, in turn, this is actually saying that the it was the in fact the healthy breakfast, not things like better equipments or advanced machines, was the actual cause.

Good question. I think the reason is that suggesting that the workers at the two plants were producing equally does not actually rule out alternative causes. How does this suggest that the workers at Plant A didn't improve the productivity because they received new plant equipment? Maybe they were working with the same plant equipment in the month before the study, but then received new equipment at the same time they received the nutritious breakfasts. I can see that it might be tempting to say that it rules out other factors because it makes the two sets of workers equally productive before the study, but it doesn't actually rule out or even make less likely that the workers at plant A improved their productivity for some reason other the nutritious breakfasts.

Hope that helps!

[gplaya123]

Thanks for the quick reply.
and I am sorry for leaving such a messy question...
What was I thinking...

Anyway, let me make sure if I got this question or not.
I read the argument a few more times as well as the answer choice C and realized that C actually says, if I may paraphrase it, something along the line of "a month before the study, the productivity of plant A and B was equal."

Now, I believe "a month before the study" is what makes C a less attractive answer: who knows what happened during this period?

Again, I guess this is another way to say that:

How does this suggest that the workers at Plant A didn't improve the productivity because they received new plant equipment?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Anyway, let me make sure if I got this question or not.
I read the argument a few more times as well as the answer choice C and realized that C actually says, if I may paraphrase it, something along the line of "a month before the study, the productivity of plant A and B was equal."

That's absolutely right!

Now, I believe "a month before the study" is what makes C a less attractive answer: who knows what happened during this period?

And that's not all that makes answer choice (C) incorrect. Even if a month before the study the plants weren't producing at an equal rate. Suppose plant A was already producing at a higher rate. If the workers at plant A became even more productive after receiving the nutritious breakfasts, that would support the argument. The issue is that this argument doesn't compare the plants' workers productivity to each other, but rather relative to what they were producing themselves before the study.

[sumukh09]

Just to be clear, this argument is just comparing the relative production of both plants before and after the study; so the fact that Plant A and B were equally productive a month earlier has no impact on the argument that nutritious breakfasts make workers more productive. Plant B could still be producing more units in the factory than Plant A, but as long as Plant A increased their production following the study then that's all that matters.

The argument is not comparing which workers are more productive ie) which Plant produces more units of production before and after the study, but rather which factory, relative to itself, improved their production after the study.

[etwcho]

By eliminating the other 4 answers I can arrive to A) but it's still very questionable to me.

Isn't the definition of "few" close, if not, same as "some?"

If the number of Plant B workers who participated in the study was 5, then few can easily mean "all," which would rather weaken the argument that the nutritious breakfast would make more workers more productive.

Is it the "possibility" of strengthening that makes A) the answer?

Thanks in advance.

[drik720]

I was initially surprised by the correct answer because I thought A was contradicting the premise.

Since the stimulus only gave us information about what was happening in the experiment, it is fair ground to make assumptions about things outside of the experiment? What I mean is that, since what we learn is only from the experiment, we can consider circumstances outside of their work also? This would be okay and not contradicting the premises?

Thanks.

[slimz89]

This is how i eliminated C and chose A

The conclusion was that nutritious breakfasts make workers more productive, because a study was performed that showed plant A when receiving free nutritious breakfasts their productivity went up. while productivity in plant B, who did not get free nutritious breakfast. productivity did not increase

If (c) were true that both plant A and B both were equally productive the month before does that strengthen the conclusion that if you eat free nutritious breakfast it will make workers more productive? No, because maybe plant B workers went out and bought their own nutritious breakfasts and completely ruined the study. Therefore answer choice (A) addresses this issue by saying no, the study was intact, and conclusion substantiated, because very few workers from plant B went out to buy nutritious breakfasts.

Note: When dealing with strengthener if you eliminate a potential problem it is in essence strengthening the conclusion. LSAT writers love using this backdoor trick

[513852276]

To add it, answer B is "less strengthen" rather than "irrelevant". The stimulus compares "changes in productivity" between two groups. In perfect situation, those two groups need to start and end working at the same time, before and during this study. To test significance of answer choice A and B, violating assumption A would rather undermine the conclusion compares to answer choice B. We choose A as the "most strengthen".

[pouyamakki]

And that's not all that makes answer choice (C) incorrect. Even if a month before the study the plants weren't producing at an equal rate. Suppose plant A was already producing at a higher rate. If the workers at plant A became even more productive after receiving the nutritious breakfasts, that would support the argument. The issue is that this argument doesn't compare the plants' workers productivity to each other, but rather relative to what they were producing themselves before the study.[/quote]

I ended up choosing (B). It could be possible that workers in plant A started work at a later time after the study was first conducted, and that when workers start work influences their productivity throughout the day. Now, one could argue that I have no reason/evidence to draw this causal connection, etc., but that's besides the point; the point is that it is possible that work start time can influence productivity. Thus, for example, the claim: "workers from plant A and plant B started work at different times," would weaken the argument, as it would introduce the possibility of another factor influencing the results. Thus, wouldn't (B) strengthen the argument by eliminating this possibility?

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct that (B) would mildly strengthen for the reason you're discussing. ANYTHING that makes A and B more fair to compare strengthens the causal argument.

To do our best science, we want groups A and B to be IDENTICAL, except for one difference: group A eats nutritious breakfasts, group B does not.

So (B) does have some strengthening effect, because it makes the two groups more fair to compare (it controls for a variable).

But if (B) were not true, would it be much of an objection? They did NOT start work at the exact same time of day? It might have been five minutes apart. To turn this into an objection, we need to introduce our superfluous assumption that the start times were significantly different AND that a significant difference in start time can affect productivity AND that Plant A was the one with the more favorable start time.

Meanwhile, consider what happens if (A) is not true, MOST of the people in Plant B consumed nutritious breakfasts?!

That's a crazy big objection. If A and B were both eating nutritious breakfasts, then nutritious breakfasts wouldn't explain the increase in productivity at A, but not at B.

[DPCTE4325]

Yeah, he botched that alright. Thanks for catching it. I just went back and edited the original post.

Why wouldn't C Strengthen? C seems to be a No cause/No Effect answer.

Curious Fact: Why did productivity of Plant A workers increase but Plant B workers did not?
Author's Story: Plant A was given free nutritious breakfast for a month & studies show that nutritious breakfast makes workers more productive.

Tasks:

1) Rule out an alternate explanation
2) increase author's story

Answer choice C: "During the month before the study, workers at Plant A and Plant B were equally productive."
Isn't this No Cause/No Effect?

During the month before the study = no free nutritious breakfast for only Plant A.
Workers at Plant A and Plant B were equally productive = no additional increased productivity w/o nutritious breakfast.

[ohthatpatrick]

The quickest way to dismiss (C) is just thinking yourself:
Relative vs. Absolute

We don't care how Plant A and B compare in absolute terms.

The curious fact is just about why Plant A increased during the the month in question,
whereas Plant B did not.

It doesn't matter whether, at the beginning of the month, Plant A was more productive / less productive / equally productive in comparison to Plant B.

This argument only cares about
Plant A beginning of month vs. end of month
and
Plant B beginning of month vs. end of month

You wouldn't be able to turn (C) into "no cause, no effect", because how you do you know whether or not there was "no effect"?

You know that the cause was absent (i.e. Plant A was not giving out free nutritious breakfasts before this study), but how do you know if the effect was absent? Maybe Plant A did still increase its productivity that month.

It could be like this

2 months ago:
A < B

1 month ago
A = B

This month
A > B

Maybe Plant A has been improving for months, it finally tied Plant B in the month before the study, and now apparently has surpassed Plant B.

That could actually WEAKEN the idea that the breakfast was the causal difference maker (because Plant A's productivity was already increasing before the free breakfast arrived).

Meanwhile, (A) gives us "no cause, no effect", because it lets us know that for Plant B,
(most) did not have nutritious breakfast, and productivity did not increase.