Q15 - A standard problem for computer

[jimmy902o]

What does answer choice E even mean? What in the stimulus would entail it to be stated in a "heavily qualified way"? I chose answer choice B because the general conclusion (if this result can be repeated...there will be a way of giving access to those people who are entitled to access and no one else) is based on a small amount of data (in a small initial trial...)

I took the phrase operational setting to mean a functional setting i.e. not in computer lab, in a similar testing manner with small amounts of trials. This question doesn't make sense.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

A couple of things, the correct answer is not (E), but rather (D). Maybe that helps already, but let's take a look at this one.

The argument's conclusion is that if this result can be repeated in an operational setting, then there will be a way of giving access to those people who are entitled to access and to no one else. The evidence for this is that the new system never incorrectly accepted someone seeking access to the computer’s data. But that's only half of the conclusion! What about the part of the conclusion that says that it will give access to those people who are entitled to access? That part has not been supported and answer choice (D) correctly identifies this error in reasoning.

Let's look at the incorrect answers...

(A) does not address a gap between the evidence and the conclusion but rather questions whether the evidence is really true. But that's not how we identify errors in reasoning since we generally accept the evidence as true and question whether the conclusion follows from it.
(B) is not true. The conclusion does qualify itself by stating that first we must be able to duplicate the results.
(C) is true, but so what? Way out of scope.
(E) does not represent a flaw. The conclusion is qualified in that it doesn't say for certain that this system will work, only that if we can duplicate the results then we can grant access to those who should be granted access and deny it to others. Qualifying (limiting) the conclusion does not represent an error, but rather cautious thinking!

Hope that helps!

[sujin91]

Thank you for your explanation. but i still do not understand why answer choice D is correct. I am not even sure what the answer choice is actually saying. I am not sure how I was supposed to think about the fact that this voice system might not even work entirely ?? I thought we were supposed to accept the premise as true and the premise clearly states that the voice system "avoids the problem".
Please explain.

Thank you.

[WaltGrace1983]

Can someone please explain in further detail what is meant by (E) and (A)? I'm a little confused on this?

[maryadkins]

(A) says that you can't compare the voice security system and the old system because they're different. But the argument isn't based on the comparison, anyway. The comparison is just there to introduce the new system"”the core is only about it. Will it be effective or not?

(E) says the conclusion has a lot of caveats. That's pretty much what "in a heavily qualified way" means. Like if I said, "You're the best! For a person who is between 20 and 25, living in New York, on Smith Street, with green eyes." That's a LOT of qualification for the conclusion "you're the best." Again, not what's going on here.

[WaltGrace1983]

So is there a relationship between the "IF this resulted can be repeated in an operational setting..." and the idea of being "heavily qualified?" I mean, wouldn't the "IF" be the "qualification?"

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

That's not particularly qualified. It's more like saying "The car will be a success if it moves."

-t

[brandonhsi]

Hello,

My question is on its premise "never incorrectly accepted someone..." I interpreted this as "always correctly accepted someone..." Therefore, I did not select (D). Isn't it I can make double negative sentence into the positive one like I did above? Thanks!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Hello,

My question is on its premise "never incorrectly accepted someone..." I interpreted this as "always correctly accepted someone..." Therefore, I did not select (D). Isn't it I can make double negative sentence into the positive one like I did above? Thanks!

Great question, brandonhsi!

So, on the surface, you're correct that you can take a double negative and make it a positive, as a general matter. But what if you're dealing with a sentence like this:

I don't sing offkey.

Well, it might be tempting to say that that must mean that I always sing in tune! But wait - what if I never, ever, ever sing at all?! If I NEVER sing at all, then it's true that I don't "sing offkey".....but it's also true that I don't "sing in tune" either.

So, if I don't sing offkey, that either means that I always sing in tune, or it means that I never sing at all - but we don't know for sure which one of these situations is happening.

Now, why is that? You might be feeling like this breaks the general rule of 'double negatives = positive" right now. But there's a critical issue here about which words are the negative words.

For example, if I said:

I never fail to have coffee in the morning

You would absolutely take the "never" and the "fail to" and turn that double negative into a positive:

I always have coffee in the morning

The reason these work differently is that "fail to have" is a negative verb - I'm not doing something. Thus, negating it means I am doing that thing. Whereas "sing offkey" - that negative is in the description of a particular type of singing.

Take another example: I did not paint the room blue.

Can we therefore conclude that I did paint the room another color? No! I might not have painted the room at all.

Now, all that is a bit technical - let's return to the question at hand. We know that the system never incorrectly accepted someone. What if I just destroyed the computer system? As in, smashed it into itty tiny pieces. Would it be accurate to say that that system will 'never incorrectly accept someone'?

Yep! It's never going to accept anyone, ever! So it certainly won't "incorrectly accept" someone! Hm....but that doesn't necessarily mean it will give access to those people who are entitled access. And that's the problem!

For the future, you'll want to recognize this type of question as a classic false positives/false negatives structure - we want the system to be more accurate, and we've proved it won't give false positive (access where it shouldn't) but we haven't showed that it won't give false negatives (denials where it shouldn't).

I hope this helps clear a few things up!

[contropositive]

A couple of things, the correct answer is not (E), but rather (D). Maybe that helps already, but let's take a look at this one.

The argument's conclusion is that if this result can be repeated in an operational setting, then there will be a way of giving access to those people who are entitled to access and to no one else. The evidence for this is that the new system never incorrectly accepted someone seeking access to the computer’s data. But that's only half of the conclusion! What about the part of the conclusion that says that it will give access to those people who are entitled to access? That part has not been supported and answer choice (D) correctly identifies this error in reasoning.

Let's look at the incorrect answers...

(A) does not address a gap between the evidence and the conclusion but rather questions whether the evidence is really true. But that's not how we identify errors in reasoning since we generally accept the evidence as true and question whether the conclusion follows from it.
(B) is not true. The conclusion does qualify itself by stating that first we must be able to duplicate the results.
(C) is true, but so what? Way out of scope.
(E) does not represent a flaw. The conclusion is qualified in that it doesn't say for certain that this system will work, only that if we can duplicate the results then we can grant access to those who should be granted access and deny it to others. Qualifying (limiting) the conclusion does not represent an error, but rather cautious thinking!

Hope that helps!

Thank you for the explanation. I initially picked E and I understood what E was saying, and since E did happen in the conclusion, I picked it. I thought D would have no bearing on the conclusion. However, when I was reviewing, I changed my answer to D because I caught the flaw the second time around.

I understand that E is not representing a flaw in reasoning but rather a "must be true" type of statement based on the argument. So why is this answer choice in a flaw reasoning question type? would this type of answer ever be correct on a flaw reasoning question type? if so, please give me examples that I can look at where this type of answer choice was correct and it was a flaw reasoning type of question.

[tommywallach]

It's there to trick you! And you fell for it! That's why it's there!

Your question fails to comprehend the nature of the LSAT. On inference/must be true questions, the answer is something that must be true. On flaw questions, the answer is the one that correctly describes the flaw. That's all you need to know. Read the question!

-t

[tommywallach]

Hey Roya,

Sorry if my post seemed accusatory or insulting. I didn't mean it that way at all. What I was saying is that you seemed to be asking why a wrong answer was included that could be considered "right" on a different question. And the answer is because that's the whole point of it; the fact that it would be right on a different question makes it more tempting as a wrong answer, and thus trickier.

Sorry again, and thanks for being a part of the forum family.

-t

[contropositive]

No worries Tom. I understand, thank you for all your help

[keonheecho]

Hi, I chose the right answer (D), but I'm still a little unsure of it. The conclusion is that this new system will provide a way of giving access to those people who are entitled to access and no one else. But the conclusion doesn't say that it will ALWAYS provide access to those who are entitled right? So even if the system sometimes denies access tho those who are entitled, wouldn't the conclusion still hold true, because isn't it still 'a way' for the entitled to gain access without permitting unauthorized access? This one threw me off because typically I thought the LSAT would throw in a word like 'a RELIABLE way' or 'always'. Is the always implied here?

Thank you

[jam3sd89]

^Exactly what he said. The "correct" answer choice says that SOMETIMES the system might deny access to people who are entitled. Well.... so what if it does?

The conclusion was that "if blah blah hypothetical... there will be a way of giving access to those people entitled to access and no one else". Why would it matter if it occasionally doesn't let the right people in? THE CONCLUSION STILL HOLDS. The entire time they were stressing NOT letting intruders in, using terms like "avoid this problem". They never once implied that they gave a hoot about letting entitled people IN. Why would we assume this is an issue?

In fact, the system only needs to let in 2 entitled people (because granted, the stimulus does say "people" and "person" would of course be singular) in order to qualify as a "way of giving access to those people entitled to access and no one else." As long as it doesn't let the intruders in, the possibility that the right people might not get in sometimes, or even MOST times, (as long as they aren't ALWAYS denied access) is completely irrelevant.

Seems like a bogus question to me.

If I run a nightclub, and let's say this nightclub has a robot bouncer who only lets girls inside and not guys.... and let's say 100 girls and 100 guys show up to try and get in. Now let's suppose my robot bouncer only let's in 2 girls, and leaves out the other 98 girls and 100 guys. Well now, you might think he's a pretty shitty bouncer-robot... nevertheless, he technically succeeded at ONLY GIVING ACCESS TO THOSE WHO WERE QUALIFIED AND NO ONE ELSE. Did he not?

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with your gripes. Good ol' Test 11. They hadn't quite hammered out the kinks perhaps.

We can still probably agree that (D) is a better answer than everything else, and living with that "imperfect but credited response" is something high scorers have to do.

So much of LSAT is beautifully logical and justified, but there are some questions that are not seemingly up to their standards, and yet we still have to figure out the best response.

The one thing the previous poster said that I would push back at is
The entire time they were stressing NOT letting intruders in, using terms like "avoid this problem". They never once implied that they gave a hoot about letting entitled people IN. Why would we assume this is an issue?


Because common sense, right? Would any business implement a password system that didn't let the authorized users in?

There was a dangerous ring of "Since they didn't mention it, how could it be relevant?" Tons of correct answers in the Assumption Family are about the things that go unmentioned / unconsidered.

But, I agree, the way the conclusion is actually worded, it sounds like its truth value merely hinges on the technical possibility of excluding unauthorized access ... meanwhile, the test writer was really focused on a conclusion that brings this security system into a practical, "operational setting". With that context in mind, the practical feasibility of using this system, we would certainly care about whether authorized access is smooth.

In summary, let's just forget this question ever happened. We get what they were going for. They did not nail the execution.

[adisadeliovsky]

I believe that the answers are definitely all crappy.

I disagree with D because it seems like to much of a definitive statement...

In the stimulus it says "(not word for word) in a small initial trial, the system NEVER incorrectly accepted someone seeking access to the computer's data thus, this result could be repeated in a operational setting, therefore there's a way of giving access to those who are entitled.

Answer choice D says "ignores the possibility that the system sometimes denies access to the people who are entitled access"
- well from the stimulus we know in the small trial that, that did not happen. What threw me off is that it does not say ignores the possibility that the system COULD sometimes denies access...
The answer choice seems to strong and almost like an assumption by simply leaving the word COULD out.

B seemed like more of a correct answer because it states bases a general conclusion on a small amount of data, although I do not like the use of the word general... answer choice D seems far to definitive in its wording

[jeanne'sjean]

In the stimulus it says "(not word for word) in a small initial trial, the system NEVER incorrectly accepted someone seeking access to the computer's data thus, this result could be repeated in a operational setting, therefore there's a way of giving access to those who are entitled.

Answer choice D says "ignores the possibility that the system sometimes denies access to the people who are entitled access"
- well from the stimulus we know in the small trial that, that did not happen. What threw me off is that it does not say ignores the possibility that the system COULD sometimes denies access...

However, the stimulus says the system never incorrectly ACCEPTED... and the answer says sometimes DENIED. They are opposites, obviously, "never incorrectly accepted" doesn't mean "never incorrectly denied". So the answer (D) actually points out that gap.