Good question! I would describe this as a conditional statement within a conditional statement.
In this case, the overarching condition is "manufacturing capacity fully utilized." Under this circumstance, and only under this circumstance, we also know: IG - - - - - -> NCI Keep in mind that, without the overarching condition, we have no idea if this still applies. This is why it is easy to eliminate answers like C. We have no information about underutilized capacity. This is a Must Be True question, so we have to stick to what we know for certain.
It makes sense to me to use an "and" statement to express this overarching condition. MCFU & IG - - - - - - -> NCI no NCI - - - - - - - > no MCFU or no IG
To answer your second question: Precondition = necessary condition. Do not forget this! I didn't understand this at first either, but this is an LSAT term that I had to learn. When you see it again, you will know what it means.
Wings are a precondition for flight. F - - - - - - > W no W - - - - - -> no F
What is the precondition? New Capital Investment. Why is it only "might"? Because as far as we know, it is a precondition only if manufacturing capacity is fully utilized. This seems like a simple question at first glance, but there are some difficult concepts here. Keep up the good work!
ShirnelMarch 11, 2020
Ok, I think I might only understand this if I am faced with it again. However, what I am understanding is both these sufficient conditions i.e., IG and RIR have NCI as their precondition so for there to be RIR the necessary condition (NCI) must be met, and that is because the same necessary condition for both must be met in order for either to occur.
I noticed that your approach to the overarching concept is to do is to compound it (the video shows it in a matrix structure). I am very receptive to your way of thinking. So is that how you've approached all overarching type questions that you have encountered?
RaviMarch 19, 2020
@Shirnel,
I'll let Sam respond to your direct question while also providing how I'd look at this one. I'm happy to hear you're receptive to Sam's rationale!
This is a diagrammable stimulus, as we have conditional logic indicators. The first sentence is tricky because it has a conditional statement within a conditional statement (inception, much?).
If manufacturing is fully utilized-->(no new capital investment-->no industrial growth)
Interest rates reduced-->new capital investment
These statements don't link up together, but it could help us to take the contrapositive of the necessary side of the statement that has a conditional within a conditional. Doing this, we get
If manufacturing is fully utilized-->(industrial growth-->new capital investment)
Doing this, we see that this statement and the second statement (Interest rates reduced-->new capital investment) both have new capital investment as a necessary condition for both premises, so let's look out for that in the answer choices.
(B) says, "A reduction in interest rates might cause a precondition for industrial growth to be met."
From the second premise in the stimulus, we know that a reduction in interest rates always results in new capital investment. The first premise of the stimulus tells us that when manufacturing capacity is fully utilized, capital investment is necessary for industrial growth. Thus, (B) is the correct answer choice. Although "might" seems a bit weak in this answer choice, it does not make the content of (B) any less true, so this the right pick.
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!
alicat6August 11, 2020
Thank you Ravi for your explanation it was really helpful!
