PrepTest 126, Section 4, Question 15
Technological innovation rarely serves the interests of society(39 more words not shown)
The argument is most vulnerable(7 more words not shown)
- Acontains a premise(5 more words not shown)
- Btakes for granted(12 more words not shown)
- Cfails to consider(18 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(21 more words not shown)
- Edraws a conclusion(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would wanting to make money stop an inventor from helping people?
The claim that technology rarely benefits society makes me think of useful developments such as running water or the internet. Those examples alone wouldn't tell us how often innovation helps, but they make me want to inspect the author's evidence. That evidence concerns the inventors' motives: they usually pursue personal gain rather than societal benefit.
Those are different questions. Imagine someone creates a useful device entirely to get rich. People buy it because it makes their lives easier. The inventor's selfish motive and the public's benefit can coexist. We would need to examine what the invention does, not just what its creator wanted.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is the move from motive to outcome. The author assumes that an outcome is unlikely unless producing that outcome was the purpose of the action. Here, the neglected possibility is that people who aren't trying to help society can help it anyway.
Working the answers
- A
The premise about inventors' motives could be true. We don't have to prove that inventors are selfless to challenge the argument. Even if nearly all of them wanted personal gain, the question would remain whether their inventions benefited society.
- B
This goes beyond the assumption the argument makes. The author concludes that innovation rarely serves society, not that a socially beneficial invention can never be commercially viable. Financial success and social benefit could occasionally coincide even on the author's account. The more precise problem is inferring a likely outcome from the absence of that motive.
- C
Whether inventors actually achieve personal gain isn't the disputed outcome. An inventor could fail to get rich and still benefit society, or become rich and benefit society. The conclusion concerns the social effect of innovation, not whether people succeed in their personal financial goals.
- DCorrect
The “certain outcome” is a benefit to society. The author treats that benefit as unlikely because inventors usually aren't motivated by a desire to produce it. But an action can have a useful effect beyond the actor's purpose. The profitable device in our example shows how personal motivation could produce a public benefit.
- E
The evidence describes what motivates inventors. It doesn't set out a theory of what people should or shouldn't do. The argument does draw a conclusion about practical consequences, but E invents a moral recommendation as the basis for that conclusion.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.