PrepTest 111, Section 4, Question 2
Bureaucratic mechanisms are engineered to resist change.(16 more words not shown)
The claim that bureaucratic mechanisms(15 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(16 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(18 more words not shown)
- CIt is cited(11 more words not shown)
- DIt is used(9 more words not shown)
- EIt is a(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If a system is built to resist change, I can see why simplifying it might be difficult. That's the author's reason for predicting that bureaucracies probably won't be simplified, even though more people are unhappy with them.
Could enough pressure overcome the resistance? Perhaps. Being designed to resist change doesn't make a system impossible to change. But the conclusion is only that simplification is unlikely, so the mere possibility of overcoming resistance doesn't settle whether the prediction is right.
The question asks for the role of the first sentence. A statement doesn't become a premise just because it comes first, and a critical-sounding statement isn't automatically a conclusion. Look at what supports what. The word 'thus' introduces the prediction, and the first sentence supplies the reason for it: resistance to change makes simplification unlikely.
What we’re looking for
That's the relationship our answer must capture. Calling the first sentence a premise is a good start, but the answer also has to identify the conclusion it supports accurately.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The claim about being engineered to resist change is a premise supporting the prediction that bureaucracies are unlikely to be simplified. The resistance is the reason; the unlikely simplification is what the author wants that reason to establish. A gets both parts of the relationship right.
- B
Growing dissatisfaction isn't offered as evidence that bureaucratic mechanisms were designed to resist change. Dissatisfaction is something the author acknowledges despite the pessimistic prediction. B wrongly turns the first sentence into a conclusion derived from that dissatisfaction.
- C
The first sentence is being used as evidence, but not for this claim. The author doesn't say bureaucracies are becoming more complex over time. They could stay exactly as complex as they are now, without becoming simpler or more complex. The argument predicts a lack of simplification, not a continuing increase in complexity.
- D
Whether bureaucracies should be simplified is different from whether they are likely to be simplified. The author could think simplification is badly needed and still doubt it will happen. D introduces a recommendation the passage doesn't argue against.
- E
This has the support running backward. The author doesn't start from the predicted lack of simplification and use it to establish how bureaucracies are engineered. The engineering claim is the starting reason for that prediction.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.