Q12 - Policy: The factory's safety inspector

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This one tests whether you understand the logic of something called a contrapositive. The complicate it though with an "or" statement.

A --> B or C

The application says:

~C
-----
~A

The problem with this is that we're missing a piece: ~B. If we knew that B were not true as well as C were not true, then we could conclude that A is not true.

A --> B or C
~B + ~C
------------------
~A

In this context, the argument assumes that the process has not been demonstrated safely in another factory for more than a year. Answer choice (B) guarantees this to be true.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is too weak. It is still possible that after the initial problems the process went on to be safely used for more than a year.
(C) is out of scope. The policy regards new processes for approval, not processes currently in use.
(D) is out of scope. What the inspector will do is irrelevant to what the inspector should do.
(E) is too weak. It is still possible that in that one other factory the process has been safely used for more than a year.

#officialexplanation

[camillebachrach]

Very confused on this question and I don't know why! please explain!

[rachel.zuliniak]

Let's simply look at what the stimulus to start:

The Policy:

A factory inspector shouldn't approve a manufacturing process unless it meets two conditions:

1. Used safely for 1+ year at another factory.
or
2. Shown to increase safety at the factory.

"Unless" can be a tricky word on the LSAT. To deal with unless, I simplify by reversing the term in the first part of the condition (should not becomes should) and then remove the unless. So, we have this:

Approve process ---> One year at another factory OR shown to increase safety.

To save time, you can form our logical reverse (remember to negate our terms, and 'or' becomes 'and'):

NOT shown to increase safety AND NOT one year at another factory --> NOT approve process.

The Application:

We are then given the opinion that the factory inspector should not approve the process. Why? 2. Not shown to increase safety.

Let's see that in the context of the contrapositive we've already formed...

NOT shown to increase safety and ??????? ---> NOT approve process.

The correct answer fills in this gap.

A) So what if the first factory had several problems? That doesn't tell you that the process wasn't safely used for a year (says nothing of the severity or the effect). Also, maybe after some initial glitches in the first few months the process worked smoothly for a year after.

B) Perfect answer - if it was never used in another factory, it can't satisfy our one year requirement.

C) It doesn't matter if the processes are safer, could be just as safe. Also, we're not comparing this process against any others.

D) This is just a prediction, tells us nothing about whether its been used. Also, the word 'extensively' means nothing in this context.

E) Doesn't matter if it's just one or ten. We need to know that it has been used in another factory for more than one year. It's missing the last part.

Hope that is helpful!