Q11 - Predictions that printed books

[jardinsouslapluie5]

I don't know why, but I cannot use (B) to strengthen the argument.
Could anybody explain?

[timmydoeslsat]

The conclusion of the argument is essentially that printed books are not going to be replaced by an electronic format in the near future.

The evidence is that bookstores and pub. libraries stock their shelves with books that the general public wants to have, and that format is something other than electronic format.

We also were given information about how research libraries could find the electronic format beneficial for scientists and so forth. But the author is driving home the point that the general public does not desire the electronic format.

Answer choice B strengthens the argument by helping to shed light on an assumption. The places that sell/offer these books must have the publishers continue to produce these books in the format being stocked by the bookstores and pub. libraries, which we know is the kind desired by the general public.

Answer choice B makes it more likely that printed books will not be replaced by the other format in the near future

[theanswer21324]

Hi

I now understand (B) is correct, but can someone explain what's wrong with (C)? It seemed like the conclusion was saying libraries will stock their shelves with items "other than an electronic format" (i.e. not electronic format), but if it turns out that scholars and scientists usually conduct their research in public libraries, wouldn't it weaken the conclusion since the public libraries would probably be more likely to stock electronic books? (i.e. if you say that scholars don't usually conduct research in public libraries, it'd strengthen the argument that libraries would continue to not stock shelves with electronic books)

Thank you

[ilia.medovikov]

Hi

I now understand (B) is correct, but can someone explain what's wrong with (C)? It seemed like the conclusion was saying libraries will stock their shelves with items "other than an electronic format" (i.e. not electronic format), but if it turns out that scholars and scientists usually conduct their research in public libraries, wouldn't it weaken the conclusion since the public libraries would probably be more likely to stock electronic books? (i.e. if you say that scholars don't usually conduct research in public libraries, it'd strengthen the argument that libraries would continue to not stock shelves with electronic books)

Thank you

Hello theanswer21324,

Assuming that scholars and scientists usually conduct their research in public libraries won't hurt the conclusion. This is because we know from the premises that bookstores and public libraries will stock books in format desired by general public, which will be non-electronic format. So even if scholars and scientists usually conduct their research in public libraries, and assuming that public libraries would recognize their need for electronic materials and stock some in, public libraries would still be providing non-electronic materials for general public. This scenario is consistent with the conclusion that books in electronic format will not completely replace books in non-electronic format any time soon.

I hope this helps

[ohthatpatrick]

Just to give a quick official explanation for this one:

Strengthen

Conc:
Printed books will not soon be replaced by electronic books
(why?)
Prem:
Bookstores and public libraries will stock books in the format desired by the general public (the general public desires non-electronic formats)

There is also a
Counterpoint
Research libraries may prefer electronic formats for scholars/scientists

(A) reinforces Counterpoint ... Weakens

(B) Bridges a gap between the premise and the conclusion. Imagine if this were negated - "publishers will NOT continue to make printed books" ... devastating to the conclusion! So ruling this out strengthens the argument.

(C) Language blender trap. It doesn't matter where scholars and scientists usually do their research. Imagine if this were negated - "scholars and scientists usually do research in public libraries" ... what effect would it have? We don't actually know which format scholars and scientists prefer, only which format research libraries prefer. Even assuming that scholars/scientists prefer electronic formats, the scholars and scientists do not comprise the general public, so a public library would just have to stock BOTH printed and electronic formats if it was trying to meet the demands of both the general public and scholar/scientists.

(D) Weakens

(E) Technically irrelevant, but on its face it seems to weaken.

[theanswer21324]

Thank you for your helpful response, Patrick.

One thing I don't get about your answer explanation is that when you negate (B), you get "Publishers will not continue to print books in the format stocked by bookstores and public libraries." I don't understand how this would destroy the conclusion. The conclusion is about whether printed books will be replaced by electronic format. Even if publishers stop printing books, doesn't that mean the public library shelves are still filled with non-electronic books? That doesn't mean that the libraries will replace their existing printed books with electronic books; it just means that they will not be able to stock their shelves with new books in printed format because they now only exist in electronic format.

I might be wrong though, so feel free to correct me. Thanks in any case for the helpful response

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct: negating (B) would only affect future inventory of books, not necessarily the currently existing physical books.

But here are two quick thoughts:
1. Even if negating (B) doesn't crush the conclusion, it certainly weakens PART of it. Maybe not every printed book would be replaced by an electronic format, but as time goes forward, a larger and larger percentage of books on the planet would be electronic, not printed.

2. It's a little ambiguous from the first sentence whether we are actually supposed to interpret that as "no printed book will exist on the planet, just electronic books" or just as "printed books will no longer be made".

LSAT might have the latter interpretation in mind, which then makes (B) more crucial.

[elanaminkoff]

I do not understand how A weakens the argument. I did not think it supported the counterclaim that researchers and scientists prefer electronic books, rather i thought it was qualifying (and limiting) this claim and showing how they prefer this for certain reasons, whereas there are many other reasons for reading books, notably just for pleasure in which case the electronic version would not be preferred.
Can someone please explain this.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I see your thought, you're just adding in too much of your own story.

Does (A) say that there are other reasons people like books? Does it say that printed books SURPASS electronic books in those areas?

It could be that scholars and scientists prefer electronic books when it comes to convenient searching/reference, but feel like printed books are just as good (not necessarily better) when it comes to other reading purposes.

If (A) had a restrictive modifier like "only" and some hint at other usage, I can see it pushing us in the direction you were suggesting:
"Scholars and scientists prefer an electronic format only when they need to quickly search and cross-reference a work, which is a minority of times."

But can you see how (A) is just directly reinforcing the claim from the argument that said
"while research libraries may find an electronic format more convenient for scholars and scientists"?

(A) is giving the reason why these libraries would consider the electronic format more convenient.

If you recognize this language from the argument, you can make peace with quickly eliminating (A).

If I said:
While Kobe Bryant has won more NBA titles, Lebron is the better player.

Does it strengthen my argument to say
(A) Kobe won all five titles with the LA Lakers

When you start a sentence with while/despite/although, the first half is a concession to your opponents, the second half is your main point.

Supporting/explaining the concession to your opponents doesn't do anything to enhance your main point.

[keonheecho]

Is there an assumption in this argument? (B) seems to weaken the premise itself, not a gap in the reasoning.

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

If there's room for Objections, then an argument is making Assumptions (because one is just the opposite of the other)

If you were debating this author, you would be arguing that "printed books WILL soon be replaced by electronic formats".

The author would say, "Nuh-uh. The general public desires a non-electronic format. And bookstores and libraries will stock the format that the public desires."

We might object, "Who says it's up to them? Maybe publishers are going to stop making printed books, since electronic formats are so much cheaper to produce. In that case, old printed books might hang around until they deteriorate, but new books would only be available in electronic formats."

So for the author's argument to hold, she would have to assume that this objection is not true. She needs to assume (B), because if you negated (B) it sounds like printed books WILL be replaced with an electronic format.