Q10 - Unlike many machines that

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me put up a complete explanation just so people have a nice "one-stop shop".

Question type: Inference
(keywords: info above supports which answer choice)

Task:
Pick the most provable answer, using only the info provided.

Typical trap tendencies on Inference:
- extreme wording
- comparative wording
- out of scope wording
- reversed logic or opposite meaning

(A) "Whenever" is way too strong. We only know of one instance.

(B) correct answer
"Some" = at least one. So this says, "in at least one industry, it's in the interest of competitors to cooperate to some extent". We can match all that up with the fax industry. We know that COMPETING manufacturers faced severely limited usefulness and commercial viability of their product until they AGREED to adopt a common format.

(C) Comparison and Out of Scope. We have no way to prove "The more X, the more Y". Is the fax industry a "high-tech industry"? Who knows? It didn't say. Is "basic design" the same as "common format"? Pretty close, but a little iffy.

(D) This is a sweeping generalization. It's well disguised, but it can be interpreted as "within any given industry, some degree of cooperation is always more beneficial than pure competition". Or, equivalently, "Among manufacturers in the same industry, some cooperation is more beneficial than pure competition." That's way stronger than what we know. It's probably true that in the fax industry, some cooperation is more beneficial. But I'm even nervous to say we can PROVE that comparison. Just because cooperating had some positive effect doesn't mean that it was a net gain over pure competition. Cooperating may have also come with negative effects we didn't hear about.

But the easier way to eliminate this is to see that we can't apply this generalization to "any group of manufacturers within the same industry".

The first sentence of info implies that many machines are perfectly useful in isolation, for example a washing machine. Hence, in the washing machine industry, there might be no value at all in cooperation among manufacturers

If (D) had said "some cooperation among manufacturers in SOME industries is more beneficial ..." it would be harder to eliminate.

But the wording of "the same industry" isn't to be interpreted as "can you find any industry for which this is true". It's to be interpreted as "within any given industry, i.e. the same industry, some cooperation is more beneficial than pure competition."

(E) "only in" is way too extreme to justify.

Hope this helps.


#officialexplanation

[rivers.sam10]

I spent a little more time than I would have liked on debating between answer choice B and choice D. I feel like both would support the information in the stimulus. The only thing I can reason is that B mentions "the interest of competitors" instead of just saying "is more beneficial" as in choice D making it more supportive. I'm wondering if anyone picked B for the same reason or is there some other reason I'm not seeing.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question, and I think we should start by reassessing the question stem. Based off the comment you posted, I got the impression we were going to be looking at something that asked us to support the argument above. Instead, the question asked us to find something that is supported by the argument above. That's the difference between an inference question and a strengthening question. Knowing our task will help us identify incorrect answer choices.

Since we are asked to find something supported by the argument above, which is an inference question, we want a narrowly stated answer choice. Something we know to be true. If we were looking at a strengthening question, then answer choice (D) would make a lot more sense. Answer choice (D) is simply too strong when it implies that we know this is good in all industries.

The key to answer choice (B) and what makes it correct, is that it begins by saying "in some industries." We know that in some industries, at least the fax machine industry, cooperation is beneficial. But to say that this is true for other industries, say the fast food industry, isn't inferable from the argument.

[yoohoo081]

The key to answer choice (B) and what makes it correct, is that it begins by saying "in some industries." We know that in some industries, at least the fax machine industry, cooperation is beneficial. But to say that this is true for other industries, say the fast food industry, isn't inferable from the argument.

I understand why B is the favorable answer. However, if the statement I quoted above is true, then why is C not the more desirable answer?

Thank you,

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I understand why B is the favorable answer. However, if the statement I quoted above is true, then why is C not the more desirable answer?

Good question! Answer choice (C) applies too broadly for it to be suggested that it is supported by the statements in the stimulus. We definitely can discuss the fax-machine industry, but answer choice (C) is about high-tech industries in general. While cooperation may be useful in some industries, it may not be useful in others. This may even apply with certain branches of an industry, so while some high-tech manufacturers may benefit from cooperation, others may not.

Answer choice (B) is nice a vague, but not over-reaching. By suggesting that it is to the advantage of some industries to cooperate, the answer choice isn't precise, which allows it to be narrowly interpreted and loosely applied. Since we know that the fax machine industry would benefit from cooperation, we can say that some industries would benefit - finding one industry is enough to claim "some."

Another issue with answer choice (C) is the degree to which the companies should cooperate. Why should it be true that the level of cooperation should increase, just because there are more competitors in the industry? Isn't it possible that while cooperation would remain important, the level of cooperation may be the same regardless of whether there are 2 or 200 competitors in an industry?

Does that answer your question?

[gramila65]

why is A incorrect? is it because the word "damaging" takes it too far?

[adriennenovak917]

Not sure why E is not correct?

[csunnerberg13]

Not sure why E is not correct?

I believe E is incorrect because we do not know if cooperation is beneficial ONLY in these types of industries. All we know is that in this particular situation, cooperation is beneficial. Cooperation could be beneficial in many other industries, as well.

why is A incorrect? is it because the word "damaging" takes it too far?

I struggled with A, too, but I think ruling A out comes down to our question stem. It asks us what the information provides the most support for - so we're supposed to make an inference. A would be a good answer if it were a principle question because [A], as a principle, would explain the scenario in the stimulus. As the question is asked, though, it's asking us to say what the information supports. We don't have enough support to say that competition is damaging EVERY time machines are dependent on machines of the same type. All we know is that in the particular instance of the fax machine industry, competition damaged the industry.

[jones.mchandler]

Since we are asked to find something supported by the argument above, which is an inference question, we want a narrowly stated answer choice. Something we know to be true. If we were looking at a strengthening question, then answer choice (D) would make a lot more sense. Answer choice (D) is simply too strong when it implies that we know this is good in all industries.

I'm confused by this. (D) states that "some cooperation among manufactures in the SAME industry..." How does that suggest we know that it is good in all industries? Doesn't the "same" limit it to one industry, as in the industry that's being discussed?

The key to answer choice (B) and what makes it correct, is that it begins by saying "in some industries." We know that in some industries, at least the fax machine industry, cooperation is beneficial. But to say that this is true for other industries, say the fast food industry, isn't inferable from the argument.

It seemed to me that B was too string when it stated that "in some industries..."

[jones.mchandler]

It cleared it up 100% for me. Thank you so much.

[kyuya]

This is a great example of how one misunderstood word can make you end up with the wrong answer.

The stimulus basically states that fax machines were becoming no longer viable due to competition in the fax industry (lack of compatible formats), so they had to cooperate a bit to make sure they all didn't get screwed over.

I'll begin with the wrong answers:

(A) This is too broad. "Whenever" here means that simply having machines that are dependent on one another is sufficient to make competition among manufacturers damaging to the industry. But we don't actually know this - this answer choice goes too far. We only know one instance involving fax machines.

(C) This is pretty far off. What is unique about the stimulus is the reference to fax machines needing to be used in a cooperative fashion - not just people in a high tech industry.

(D) Heres the tricky one. I think this one is wrong because of the word "manufacturers". The stimulus tells us that the issue is incompatible FORMATS, not necessarily something physical - something we would attribute to manufacturers. Meaning, the issue is with the software, and not with the factories producing these fax machines. Therefore, having cooperation among the manufacturers is actually pretty irrelevant for this question. If we could fill in "manufacturers" with "fax industry" this answer choice would be right - and that is essentially what happens with (B), except it uses a bit more vague language (some industries opposed to explicitly stating fax industry).

(E) We are told in the stimulus of one instance of where cooperation is useful, however that has no bearing on other times cooperation will be useful. Common flaw, wrong answer.

As for (B),

Like I alluded to before, (B) does what (D) couldn't do, and provides us with the proper group to draw and inference about. "Some industries" would include the fax industry, and therefore it is right.

[moshemeer]

It says the "manufacturers agreed to adopt a common format"- which implies a cooperation between them so I do not think D is wrong for that reason but for the other reasons stated above that it is too general...

[mswang7]

A. Makes an unsupported/extreme leap. Whenever implies 100% of the time when the argument only discusses fax machines in particular.
B. Yes, the fax machine industry qualifies as one industry, also weak language (some, to some extent) is often an indication of a correct answer for most supported questions.
C. This is unsupported. The argument only states in the fax industry the competitors had to cooperate if they wanted to maximize usefulness. Also, we don't know anything about high tech industries or what is required in determining the design of a product
D. Tempting but the argument states this only applies to industries that require working with other machines
E. We don't know anything about whether cooperation is beneficial in industries where products depend on other products of the same type. Also, notice they tried a sneaking term shift in there machine - product

[JeremyK460]

If (D) had said "some cooperation among manufacturers in SOME industries is more beneficial ..." it would be harder to eliminate.

But the wording of "the same industry" isn't to be interpreted as "can you find any industry for which this is true". It's to be interpreted as "within any given industry, i.e. the same industry, some cooperation is more beneficial than pure competition."

you can even go as far as 'some cooperation among manufacturers in THE FAX industry is more beneficial than pure competition' and it would not be any different / harder / whatever

it's wrong for two reasons that i can see:

first, the answer choice kind of has the wrong quantity of cooperation
the stimulus says that the manufacturers agreed on a COMMON format to avoid incompatible
so it'd be reasonable to say that the amount of cooperation would at least be 'MOST' since having only some cooperation wouldn't maximize the industry's compatibility

second, there's more support about the frequency of cooperation in an industry...
cooperation that would SOMETIMES be better than pure competition
not 'SOME cooperation in SOME industries ...'