Logical reasoning PrepTest 111 · Section 4 · Question 17

Incorrect. If the negative effects of taxation on technological innovation don't kick in until 45%, then the 30% in the conclusion is too low, and the argument is weakened—that 30% could be broken and there could still be technological innovation.

Incorrect. While a high tax on income might provide a negative incentive to innovate in technology, if making money isn't a significant factor in innovating, then people will still do it even if they're taxed highly. This answer points out the term shift between the necessary condition of the first conditional and the sufficient condition of the second, thus calling into question the ability to chain them together. That weakens the argument.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), this answer points out a shift between the terms in the conditionals—specifically, the necessary condition of the second conditional and the sufficient of the third. If they can't be chained together, then the argument falls apart, so this answer weakens the argument.

Incorrect. This answer highlights the shift between the language in the premises and conclusion. The stimulus concludes something about maintaining a value system, but it never discusses that in the premises. Instead, it mentions losing a voice in world affairs. By showing that these two terms aren't the same, this answer weakens the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
(1) High tax on income → Negative incentive to innovate tech
(2) Innovation in technology is hampered → Fall behind in arms race
(3) In strategically disadvantageous position → Lose voice in world affairs
Therefore - Maintain value system → ~Allow highest tax bracket to break 30%

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features a series of conditional statements that seem to build on each other to lead to the conclusion. If you're having trouble spotting the indicator words that lead to the conditionals as we diagrammed them, they are:
P1) All (sufficient)
P2) All (sufficient); inevitably (sufficient, but the term before it is sufficient)
P3) Are destined (similar to inevitably)

Looking at the premises and conclusion, we can see that there's a new concept introduced in that conclusion—maintaining a value system. That's not linked to terms in the premises at all. The other term in the conclusion about the tax bracket not being high aligns a bit with the opening term, so we should take the contrapositive of the conclusion to get everything to line up (it's much easier to contrapose the single conclusion than to contrapose all three premises!):
Allow highest tax bracket to break 30% → ~Maintain value system

With the conclusion aligned with the premises, we can now see that there's a disconnect at essentially every step of the argument.

First, the conclusion starts with a tax over 30%. However, the premise discussing it only discusses a high" tax. Is 30% high? There's no way to know, so the argument is assuming that it is. Any answer that says it isn't will weaken this argument.

Second, the first and second premise don't build into each other. A negative incentive to innovate in technology doesn't mean that the innovation will be hampered—maybe the other incentives are so great as to overcome the negative from the income tax, or maybe people who create new technology don't do it for the money. Any answer pointing out this shift will weaken the argument.

Third, the second and third premises have a jump! Falling behind in an arms race won't necessarily lead to a strategically disadvantageous position. If you have enough nukes to blow up the world, failing to create the next generation of nukes probably won't do much to erode how much power you have. Another shift, another potential answer splitting those concepts.

And then, finally, there's a gap between the third premise and the conclusion. Losing a voice in world affairs doesn't necessarily mean that you'll see your value system and way of life erode. Maybe failing to have a voice just means you'll be left alone. If an answer points out this shift, it will also weaken the argument.

Answer Explanation:
The Politician notes that it doesn't matter if the strategically disadvantageous position is caused by foolishness or a historical accident ("through . . . or . . . " conveys that either one would have an equivalent effect), so this answer has no impact on the argument and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
This is a bit of a tricky takeaway. We've seen conditional arguments where the LSAT uses distinct terms to refer to the same concept, or it'll raise one concept that, while distinct from another, still guarantees that other concept, and so there's no gap.

For these harder questions, always question whether the use of different terms means that the argument is discussing different concepts. If the definition of the terms doesn't relate directly to the other concept, then there's a gap.