Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 8: Logical Reasoning – Worked examples- Identify the conclusion | Worked example
- Identify an entailment | Worked example
- Strongly supported inferences | Worked example
- Working with disputes | Worked example
- Identify the technique | Worked example
- Identify the role | Worked example
- Identify the principle | Worked example
- Match the structure | Worked example
- Match principles | Worked example
- Identify a flaw | Worked example
- Match flaws | Worked example
- Necessary assumptions | Worked example
- Sufficient assumptions | Worked example
- Strengthen | Worked example
- Weaken | Worked example
- Helpful to know | Worked example
- Explain | Worked example
- Resolve a conflict | Worked example
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Explain | Worked example
Example video demonstrating one way to approach questions that ask you to select a choice that contains info that would explain a situation described in the stimulus.
Want to join the conversation?
Choice (A): Automated flight technology does not always function correctly.
(A) is irrelevant. We're told that even when it functions correctly, it's not perfect.(3 votes)- (E) explains why it can reliably guide a plane but not be protection against human error. It is because it responds to what humans tell it to do.(2 votes)
- You may be overlooking one important part of the conclusion. The speaker states that the the technology is not a perfect safeguard "even when functioning correctly". What we have to resolve then is how accidents can occur when the technology is functioning well.
Answer choice (A) does not resolve the situation, since it only tells us that the technology may not always function well. What we need is a reason for the technology to not provide a safeguard when it is functioning correctly. Choice (A) is therefore out of scope.(1 vote) - What does this mean: Automated flight technology invariably executes exactly the commands that humans give it?(1 vote)
Video transcript
- [Instructor] Automated flight technology can guide an aircraft very reliably, from navigation to landing. Yet this technology, even
when functioning correctly, is not a perfect safeguard
against human error. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the
situation described above? And the situation is, hey
look, this automated flight technology, it can guide
an aircraft very reliably, navigation to landing, yet it cannot, even when functioning correctly, it is not a perfect safeguard
against human error. Alright, so which one of these most helps explain the situation? Automated flight technology does not always function correctly. No, that would explain why there's errors, why automated flight technology doesn't always guide an aircraft, but it doesn't explain anything about why it's not a perfect
safeguard against human error. Remember, human error is what
we seem to be worried about. So we don't wanna, we're
not concerned with that, at least in this state of
affairs right over here. B, smaller aircraft do not always have their automated flight
technology updated regularly. Once again, now it's talking
about smaller aircraft, while up here we're talking about automated flight technology generally, and then it's talking about not having the flight technology updated regularly, but this doesn't touch on why there still will be some human error, why this, it's not a perfect safeguard
against human error. If a plane's automated flight
technology malfunctions, crew members have to
operate the plane manually. Well this actually reverses it, this is actually saying
how humans can help errors with the automated flight technology. It's not talking about why
automated flight technology is not a perfect safeguard
against human error. It's not talking about
human error right here. D, some airplane crashes are
due neither to human error nor to malfunctions of automated flight, or malfunction of automated
flight technology. Well this, once again, does
that talk about this issue of safeguards against human errors? They're talking about,
there's some crashes that are not due to the
technology or the humans. So this doesn't touch there,
I hope E is the answer, 'cause I ruled out the first four. Alright, automated flight
technology invariably executes exactly the
commands that humans give it. It's a good thing that this does indeed look like the answer, because it's saying, look, at the end of the day,
automated flight technology, they're servants to the
commands of the humans. And so if the humans make a human error, well then it's still not gonna, it's not gonna be a
safeguard against that. So I like that, and you can even add this to the paragraph above, and actually the paragraph
makes a little bit more complete sense,
you get a better sense of why we're in this state of affairs. If I were to say,
automated flight technology can guide an aircraft very reliably, from navigation to landing. However, automated flight
technology invariably executes exactly the
commands that humans give it, therefore this technology, even
when functioning correctly, is not a perfect safeguard
against human error. That sounds good, it's actually
a more fleshed out argument or not even an argument,
a more fleshed out way of explaining why
we're in the situation, where automated flight technology does not eliminate the situation, is not a safeguard against human error.