Q25 - Unquestionably, investors of useful

[megm7267]

I first chose (C) for this because I thought that the claim in the question stem supported the claim that engineers don't get enough recognition (I misread the claim from the Q stem, thinking that it included the "engineers must translate" part).

However, I can kind of see why (B) is the correct answer. Just to be sure, is the "problem identified in the argument" (B) - "Inventors sometimes serve as their own engineers?"

[canylaw]

Can someone help me understand the stimulus?

I cannot understand the it somehow...

[maryadkins]

This question asks us to identify the role of a statement, so we want to find the core determine how the statement relates to it.

The conclusion is:

Engineers deserve credit for their contribution.

The premises are:

they get too little recognition

+

they have to translate inventors' ideas into something useful

Where is the quoted statement? Not in the core. In fact, it's inconsistent with the argument--which is that engineers should get more recognition, not just the inventors. So we want an answer choice that says something about how the statement is a concession or a caveat. It's a way of saying, "EVEN THOUGH this problem doesn't always arise..." (B) does this.

(A) is incorrect because the statement is not dealing with practical versus theoretical anything.

(C) is incorrect. It isn't actually consistent with any earlier statement (which is only one sentence differentiating between engineers and inventors).

(D) is incorrect because it's not saying the distinction is unclear; just that it doesn't always arise. In fact, "more often," it does arise.

(E) is incorrect because it doesn't introduce any solution.

[timmydoeslsat]

Did this LR section today and I would like clarification on something with this question.

I felt that the main conclusion of this stimulus was "But the engineers who help develop an invention get too little recognition."

The last sentence with therefore seems to be giving us a subsidiary conclusion after the premise of engineers translating insight into something useful. And this idea of engineers deserving credit for their contribution seems to support the idea that they get too little recognition.

I know that this is not directly relevant in answering the question but it could have been.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Conceded point(s):
Inventors deserve credit for their inventions, but engineers get little recognition.
Inventors sometimes act as their own engineers
Premise: By and large engineers must translate inventor's insight into something workable and useful.
Conclusion: Engineers also deserve credit for their contribution to useful devices

The phrase in question is indicates that Engineers do in fact receive recognition because in some circumstances they are also the inventors.


(A) The argument is not separated into a practical and theoretical part.
(B) Looks good, keep for now
(C) It's not supporting any other point in the argument, it's an opposing point that the author concedes.
(D) Trap answer choice. It does in fact concede a distinction on which the argument relies "When engineers are not the inventors and thus get little credit v when they are", but it doesn't do so to show that it is unclear. The phrase in question illuminates this distinction.
(E) It doesn't introduce any alternative solution.