Q16 - Madden: Industrialists address

[bbirdwell]

We need to boil this long argument down to more manageable pieces if we're going to be able to recognize the principles in the answer choices.

The important points are these:
1. industrialists address problems by simplifying them...
2. in farming, these usually lead to oversimplification (a bad thing)
3. example: water retention and drainage
4. more farming problems are created than solved when ag is the domain of the industrialist rather than the farmer.

(A) Water drainage/retention is but one example given, not the "most important."

(B) Yes. The industrialists, whose approach is "oversimplification" should stay away from farming. The reasonable inference is that farming is best left un-simplified.

(C) No, just better than the industrialists, most of the time.

(D) Tempting choice. The important distinction to remember is that "industrialists" cause more problems than they solve when they enter the agricultural domain. This is different than saying "industrial solutions" should "never be sought."

(E) Not "fundamentally flawed" -- just not well-applied to farming.

#OfficialExplanation

[mrudula_2005]

thanks for answering this one!

I'm still having trouble getting sold on (B) here. I feel like it is too extreme. Just because industrialists tend to mess up and OVERsimplify when addressing farming problems, doesn't mean basic simplification or face-value analysis of the problems in farming is not okay. It seems like a big leap to me to go from "oversimplification" creates more problems for agriculture, to the recommendation that the problems of farming should be viewed in all their complexity. there are quite a few intermediate, moderating stages between these 2 poles (between oversimplification and full out complexity) that could be just the right approach to farming, no?

furthermore, you made a very good point about (D) that I did not pick up on in my original read - the distinction between the agents (industrialists) that are mostly being criticized versus the characteristic (industrial) they represent. BUT, I still feel like (D) is best illustrated because in line 6, Madden explicitly says "...a fact alien to industrial logic" and thereby does expressly censure "industrial solutions" as clearly mentioned in (D). I feel like if it didn't state that in line 6, I would find little reason to hang on to (D) as a decent answer choice.

if you could help me see how (B) is still the better choice, i would be greatly appreciative. thanks a lot!

[jennifer]

is this a main point question? The question steam ....best illustrates the following propositions.? Is what type of question?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question.

it's a principle question. There are several forms of principle questions. Some ask you to conform to a principle in the stimulus, some ask you to justify an argument with a principle, and some ask you to find the principle that is illustrated (think match the reasoning). No matter what though, we're being asked to find a general rule that applies to the specific situation at hand.

Does that clear it up?

[jennifer]

Yes, thank you. I had one more question. is the main point the first sentence or the last? More than likely identifying the incorrect conclusion was the root of my problems. I thought the last sentence was the main conclusion when I orginally did the question. Thank you again for your help and your quick response.

[interestedintacos]

It seems like a big leap to me to go from "oversimplification" creates more problems for agriculture, to the recommendation that the problems of farming should be viewed in all their complexity.

.

I agree. There's a difference between one group that tends to oversimplify when attempting to simplify, and simplifying in general. What's to say farmers shouldn't simplify things? The problem is about industrials doing it. But you need not get too precise on "best illustrated" questions. And in any case where a choice is not so strongly supported, like choice B here, the other choices are actually 1000 times bad. And it turns out, however attractive D is at first, it's 1000 times bad. It's a thousand times more sweeping of a conclusion than anything the text could be used to support.

[gotomedschool]

Industrial solutions for a problmes in farming should NEVER be sought?

NEVER?

NEVER EVER???

What if they are the only possible solution to a problem? Even if they create more problems then they will solve, the solution might be viable. At any rate, madden isn't trying to say that they should never be sought but that they oversimplify issues we should focus on them from the farmer's perspective because they understand the full complexity of the farming issues.

[noah]

Industrial solutions for a problems in farming should NEVER be sought?

NEVER?

NEVER EVER???

What if they are the only possible solution to a problem? Even if they create more problems then they will solve, the solution might be viable. At any rate, madden isn't trying to say that they should never be sought but that they oversimplify issues we should focus on them from the farmer's perspective because they understand the full complexity of the farming issues.

Right, and if anyone is confused about what this is in reference to, that's why (D) is wrong.

[noah]

Yes, thank you. I had one more question. is the main point the first sentence or the last? More than likely identifying the incorrect conclusion was the root of my problems. I thought the last sentence was the main conclusion when I orginally did the question. Thank you again for your help and your quick response.

This is a principle question - we're asked to find a match to the principle(s) outlined. So, your job is not to find the main point but to clearly grasp the principles you need to match. Tell me if that doesn't make sense.

[sch6les]

(1) Industrialists => address problems by simplifying them => oversimplification
---
(2) Industrialists => more problems are created than solved

The example stuff they talk about in the stimulus is just acts as support for (1).

So the assumption here is:
address problems by simplifying them => oversimplification => more problems are created than solved

Contrapositive of assumption:
~more problems are created than solved => ~oversimplification => ~address problems by simplifying them

The argument makes an additional reasonable assumption, which is that: creating more problems than are solved should be avoided. This can be notated as: ~more problems are created than solved.

And we can infer from that, through the contrapositive of assumption, that ~address problems by simplifying them. This is what (B) states.

[db_8400]

I had to spend a good 10 -12 mins on this problem, I too like the other 4000 people got it wrong but what really helped me understand answer B was " Industrialist address problems by simplifying them, but in farming THAT STRATEGY (simplifying) leads to over simplification. When i was reading it I disregarded that crucial word "THAT and "strategy" I skimmed past that and I believe LSAC wants that. Hopefully this helps someone who was in my position.

On a side note: I see D wrong b/c it says "never" and the stimulus says "usually leads to", there is a difference b/w never and usually. Just my POV.

[ganbayou]

I treated this question as infer question instead of principle question.
How is this a principle question?

Thank you

[tommywallach]

Your question is difficult to answer without presenting a tautology. It's a principle question because it's asking about a principle. It doesn't use the language of infer questions. If you don't yet know what that is, I'd recommend reading our book (or somebody's book) on LR, so you can see the language used when they're asking inference questions (usually "infer," "imply," or "suggest," though there are others). This question is asking about a principle.

-t

[andrewgong01]

B is absolute in saying ALL complexity should be taken account when solving farming issues. From the stimulus we know that industrialists simplify the problem, which usually leads to oversimplification, which is bad.


But I don't think this is enough infomation to go on to say that we have to view it in ALL its complexity (i.e. no simplification at all)

What if the ideal solution is to view it in a slightly simplified manner where not all the complexities is taken into account? Moreover, the stimulus says that when industrialists apply their method it usually leads to the issue; however, this still leaves the gap that sometimes it does not lead to the issue since it does not always lead to the bad outcome. Therefore, it is still a stretch to say that we should always view farming with all its complexity and never simplify our approach towards farming.

This answer choice in itself seems to be like false choice where you either over simplify it or you don't simplify it at all..

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree, it's pretty awful.

The easy response is, "Which answer are you prepared to argue is BETTER?"

I might say that (C) seems just about as good, even though we know it's wildly over the top. If we're going to take a leap from the text and "BEST support" one of these generalizations, why not (C)?

One thing to keep in mind is that (B) is only asking that we VIEW a problem in all its complexity. This doesn't mean that we always take the most complex action. It's just a way of saying we shouldn't OVER-simplify.

If something is a simple problem, then viewing it in all its complexity still means viewing it in a simple way. These are the situations where the industrialists might succeed, but our rule in (B) still lets them succeed.

Where are industrialists fail is when OVERsimplification occurs, and it's hard to oversimplify if you view something in all its complexity.

[HarrisonO35]

I was struggling between C and D for this one-- no wonder I chose C with a bit of uncertainty. I dismissed B because it seemed too vague and irrelevant... "should be viewed in all their complexity." The whole premise of industrialists over-simplifying things just left my head I guess.

[BarryM800]

I've difficulty comprehending the stimulus. The first sentence gives us the conclusion: "Industrialists address problems by simplifying them, but in farming that strategy usually leads to oversimplification." Then, the second and third sentences present the premises to illustrate that point: "Industrialists see water retention and drainage as different and opposite functions: to facilitate water retention, they use a terrace or a dam; to facilitate drainage, they use drain tile, a ditch, or a subsoiler," while commenting "good topsoil both drains and retains water is a fact alien to industrial logic."

Without any outside farming knowledge, it looks to me the industrialists' approach is overcomplicating the issue, while the farmers' approach sounds like a simple solution: The industrialists are doing more things to resolve the issues, while the farmers can do just one thing to achieve all goals. So I don't really get why the argument states that the industrialists oversimplify the issue. Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I've difficulty comprehending the stimulus. The first sentence gives us the conclusion: "Industrialists address problems by simplifying them, but in farming that strategy usually leads to oversimplification." Then, the second and third sentences present the premises to illustrate that point: "Industrialists see water retention and drainage as different and opposite functions: to facilitate water retention, they use a terrace or a dam; to facilitate drainage, they use drain tile, a ditch, or a subsoiler," while commenting "good topsoil both drains and retains water is a fact alien to industrial logic."

Without any outside farming knowledge, it looks to me the industrialists' approach is overcomplicating the issue, while the farmers' approach sounds like a simple solution: The industrialists are doing more things to resolve the issues, while the farmers can do just one thing to achieve all goals. So I don't really get why the argument states that the industrialists oversimplify the issue. Thanks!

I think the argument is using "oversimplification" to describe the reasoning behind the industrialists' approach, not necessarily the approach itself.

Hope this helps.