Thank you for your question, which is a very good one. This tricky LSAT question really requires you to look closely at the terms of the conclusion in the stimulus, and to keep your focus on that. The conclusion is that "it is likely that papercrete is indeed promising for large-scale construction." Yet we are told that "most builders do not consider papercrete to be a promising material for large-scale construction." Although those who regularly work with papercrete, "primarily on small-scale projects," DO think it is promising, the issue with the conclusion in the stimulus is not that the argument mixes up small-scale and large-scale production. Rather, it is that the argument concludes that it is "likely" that the material is promising, even though we don't have enough information about what most builders do and why to establish that probabilistic conclusion.
If (E) is true--if most builders avoid papercrete because they ARE familiar with its properties--then it is not likely that the material is promising for large-scale construction. In other words, builders are not ignorant of the properties of the material. Rather, they've used it, and they don't like, so they avoid it.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
guibrasil1993@gmail.comMay 24, 2021
Still do not understand why A is wrong. I get why E but not A.
Emil-KunkinNovember 3, 2023
The author doesn't confuse the two, but rather, decides to apply what is true of one category to the other category. The author is clear about the boundary between the two, but wrongly decides that other concerns override the possible differences between the two.
