PrepTest 130, Section 4, Question 8
Factory manager: One reason the automobile parts this(59 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the factory(7 more words not shown)
- Afails to recognize(11 more words not shown)
- Bshifts without justification(21 more words not shown)
- Cargues that one(24 more words not shown)
- Drecommends a solution(12 more words not shown)
- Efails to make(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Old, inefficient equipment can make production expensive. It might consume more electricity or require more labor to produce the same parts. I can see why replacing it could help the factory offer better prices and keep customers from going elsewhere.
My first question is how much the replacement would cost. If a complete refurbishment cost a billion dollars, would the savings justify it? Knowing the benefit would not settle that decision without knowing the cost.
But the conclusion makes a different questionable move: because refurbishment would produce more competitive prices, the manager says the factory must refurbish to survive. What if there are other ways to lower prices? The factory might negotiate better terms with suppliers, reduce labor costs, or organize work more efficiently while keeping its current equipment.
What we’re looking for
We can accept that survival requires competitive prices and that new equipment would help achieve them. We still cannot conclude that new equipment is required. For this flaw question, look for the move from one available method to the claim that no alternative will do.
Working the answers
- A
The manager actually proposes changing prices by installing more efficient equipment. The flaw is not ignoring the possibility of changing prices over time. It is treating this particular way of improving prices as necessary.
- BCorrect
Refurbishment begins as one way to achieve more competitive prices. The conclusion treats it as the only way to get the prices needed for survival. The manager has not ruled out better supplier deals, improved work processes, or other routes to the same goal.
- C
The argument does say that inefficient equipment contributes to expensive parts. But the evidence does not indicate that expensive parts cause the equipment to be outdated or inefficient. That would be the switched causal relationship C describes. It is not the mistake in insisting on refurbishment.
- D
The manager explicitly identifies a cause of the problem: outdated, inefficient manufacturing equipment. The recommendation may overlook alternative solutions, but it does not overlook every possible cause. D contradicts what the argument actually considers.
- E
“We must completely refurbish the factory” is a definite recommendation. The problem is that the recommendation is presented as unavoidable without establishing that it is. E would fit an argument that merely floated a possible solution, which is not what this manager does.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.