A new computer system will not significantly increase an organization's efficiency unless the computer system require...

Julie-V on September 18, 2019

I think the key here is to note "new" and "existing" in the stimulus. If there's a new, more productive way of working, then there will be in increase in efficiency (NMPWW -> IE). But since the computer system is is fitting the existing way of work (~NMPWW), then it would have to be the case that there is not an increase in efficiency (~IE, answer choice A).

I read "most logically completes the argument" as a statement that would make the contrapositive statement " ____ -> ~NMPWW" true. Since the contrapositive of the S&N in the first sentence would be "~IE -> ~NMPWW", I think that would justify why (A) is correct.

shunhe on December 22, 2019

@Ryan-Mahabir and @Julie-V,

Here, the stimulus is actually telling us something else: if a new system doesn't force employees to adopt new/better ways of working, then it won't significantly increase efficiency. (if ~FEANWW, then ~SIE)

We know that the new system will fit the existing ways of working. In other words, it won't force employees to adopt new/better ways of working. We can see that A results from our conditional logic. Hope this helps!

Jimmywantstogotolawschool on January 9, 2020

Is "appreciable" the same as "significant"?

Lisam on November 18, 2021

Hello, I see written in the stimulus explanation that it starts with the contrapositive of the first conditionals correct? Or am I not reducing the unless statement correctly? Because I know that "unless" introduces a necessary, and then the sufficient is negated which would be
New computer increase -> computer system adopt new, more productive ways of working.
So am I correct in reading that the explanation in the stimulus explanation is of the contrapositive?

Ravi on February 8, 2022

@Lisam, you'd diagram the first sentence like this:

doesn't require organizations employees to adopt new, more productive ways of working-->will not significantly increase an organization's efficiency

We know that the Ministry of Transportation is having a new computer system built to fit the ministry's existing ways of working, so the sufficient condition of our diagram is met. From this, we can conclude that the new system will not significantly increase the Ministry's efficiency. It sounds like you just wrote down the contrapositive, which is totally fine!

joedonnelly840 on December 28, 2022

Hi there,

Just a thought about answer choice D: even if the new computer system is built to fit the ministry's existing way of working, doesn't D make the computer system require the ministry to adopt a new way of working? If it automates many processes that are currently performed manually, doesn't that qualify as introducing a new, more productive way of working? If it does, then it would satisfy the necessary condition in the argument. I grant that it wouldn't be sufficient to conclude that the new computer system will increase productivity, but we're trying to find an answer that most logically completes the argument. If D is true, it now would seem just as unlikely that the new system would fail to increase productivity. It now becomes a toss-up and you can no longer choose either A or D over the other.

Can you help me understand this one?

Emil-Kunkin on December 30, 2022

Hi, I think there are two main problems remaining with D. First, that does not logically complete the argument. It bring in new concepts of automation and the idea of being worthwhile. The passage tells us nothing about it being worthwhile. Given that we should not be bringing in new concepts in the conclusion, that is a big red flag. Second, we have no idea if automation actually will require a new way of working. Maybe they are automating tasks that were previously outsourced.