Dealing with Tricky Language

*companies WERE investing

Hi Glenn, I would not try to get inside the test makers' heads. In normal speech, if you read that "this company has invested heavily in computer technology" the simplest interpretation would be that the company in question has bought tech solutions- with the exception of an investment vehicle like a VC fund. While a reasonable person could interpret the term "invest in" in either way, from the context it seems most likely that this investment is an investment in business technology, not an equity investment.

Hi Emil, Hi Glenn and thank you for your post, I was very frustrated with this question for the exact same reason: both definitions of the word "investing" are pertinent, which leads me to Emil or any LSAT EXPERT, please: Two questions: 1) When faced with a word that has more than one equally pertinent definitions, do you recommend, as a rule, the approach of defining the word within the context of the stimulus? 2) Should we bother with reading the other answer-choices, or should we move on? I am very worried about the approach Emil. No one told us that it is safe to define the vocabulary of the answer-choices within the context of the stimulus. (There's no official directive instructing us to do so). More importantly, the incorrect answer-choice are wrong because of the meaning of the words they hold, so picking the definition that suits us feel like the easy way out, (a technicality; not the kind of Lawyer I aspire to be :)))! Respectfully, Mazen

In connection to my post above, I chose A, because I interpreted the "inefficiencies" as an alternative cause to the effect of lower productivity. I did not see A as linking the "burdening inefficiencies" to the computer technology. In other words, the correlation between reliance on computer technology and productivity growth is weakened by the correlation between inefficiencies and productivity. The only way for A to be wrong, in my mind, is for the inefficiencies to be caused by the heavy reliance on computer technology, but I do NOT feel that A conveys this causal relationship that the reliance on computer technology created inefficiencies that in turn lead to hindrance of productivity growth, which would have rendered A the incorrect answer because it would have strengthened the argument by tying closer together the correlation between productivity and computer technology. Does A make it clear that the inefficiencies are those of the computer technology? Respectfully, Mazen

Hi Mazen, Context is great! You may not realize it, but you're probably using context to determine which meaning to go with all the time. Most words can be used in more than one way, and you have to interpret how the author used it in that specific context. As to A, I don't really think it is relevant to the argument. A is explaining a possible cause for a phenomenon that it assumes happened, but the conclusion of the passage is that that phenomenon probably happened.

Hi Emil, So I did this question and got it right. I would like to ask you for some reassurance though. It seemed to me that Answer Choices A, B, C, and E all strengthen the argument. Am I safe to assume that? Answer Choice "D" was the only answer choice that through my thought processes one hundred percent weakened the conclusion because it shows that investment has been the greatest with companies who have invested in computers, directly contradicting our conclusion. Am I right in my thought processes here?

Hi, I dont think that they actually do strengthen the idea that an individual company who invested in tech will have been unlikely to improve productivity growth- although they do seem to strengthen the idea that in general productivity is not linked with tech.