PrepTest 107, Section 4, Question 14
Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount(113 more words not shown)
The plant manager's argument is(11 more words not shown)
- AThe overall conclusion(22 more words not shown)
- BThe support for(16 more words not shown)
- CThe overall conclusion(6 more words not shown)
- DEvidence that is(19 more words not shown)
- EFacts that are(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Expensive to install, expensive to run—does that settle whether the change could pay off?
I understand why the manager is concerned. Switching furnaces and reheating the copper would add costs. At first, I also want to ask about other tradeoffs: could reducing sulfur dioxide create a different pollution problem, or make production harder? A benefit in one area doesn't settle the whole decision.
But that same caution applies to the manager's conclusion. What if customers prefer buying from a cleaner plant and the company makes more sales? What if reducing sulfur dioxide also reduces pollution-related fees the company would otherwise pay? Those are hypothetical benefits to investigate. They show why listing costs doesn't establish that the switch would bring no profit.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to criticize the plant manager, so keep the supervisor's separate point in its place. Our main objection is already there: the manager reaches a conclusion about the overall financial result without examining the possible benefits alongside the costs.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A net effect is what remains after the relevant benefits and costs are weighed together. The manager discusses installation and operating expenses, then concludes there will be no profit from adopting the process.
But extra sales or savings elsewhere could outweigh those expenses. We don't have to prove that either benefit exists. The flaw is that the manager hasn't considered them or otherwise established that the stated costs settle the total result. Evidence about some contributors to profit isn't automatically evidence about the final balance.
- B
The manager offers cost-based reasons, not merely “Believe me because I'm the plant manager.” We might find those reasons incomplete, but they are still reasons about the process. B misdescribes the support as resting on the speaker's authority.
- C
Buying equipment, installing it, and spending more on operation are separate facts offered to support the profit conclusion. They don't simply restate “There will be no profit.” In fact, our objection is that all those cost claims could be true while gains elsewhere still made the change profitable.
- D
The manager doesn't label the cost claims as merely probable. They are presented as facts about the proposed process. The problem isn't turning stated uncertainty into certainty; it's drawing a total financial conclusion from an incomplete account.
- E
The cost facts are directly relevant to profitability. We would want to know them before making the decision. Their weakness is that they don't give the whole picture, not that they have nothing to do with the conclusion. A correctly identifies the missing factors.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.