Q21 - Historian: The standard "QWERTY"

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you explain number 21? I initially chose A, but E is the correct answer. E seems too strong of a choice.

I understand that the reason for the original design to be awkward and limit typing speed was due to the specific problem of typewriters jamming frequently.

But from this, I'm not sure how we can form such a strong conditional as in what E says.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

This a challenging question to be sure, and it's a great representation of the idea that, on inference questions, we're looking for an answer that is most provable, rather than actually provable.

I agree that (A) and (E) are the most attractive choices.

(B) is not close to provable. We have no evidence that some keyboards today are more likely to jam.

(C) is not close to provable. It's unlikely they would have changed their plans just because they saw a future possibility.

(D) is not close to provable. The benefits have not been discussed.

(A) is very tempting, but can we say that "most" people typed faster with non-QWERTY keyboards? No. We can't even say "many" people did so -- the text only informs us that people can double typing speed. We also know most people are used to QWERTY keyboards -- perhaps we have the potential to type faster with a non-QWERTY, that doesn't mean many of us would actually type faster.

An analogous scenario we can imagine has to do w/meters vs yards. Meters make a lot more sense, and they can help one understand distance better. However, if you are more used to yards, and you've used yards your whole life, thinking in terms of meters might not be easier for you, and you may not be faster at making computations using meters.

(E) is not perfect -- perhaps early computers could have posed issues that required limiting typing speed. However, since we're told this characteristic (QWERTY) was designed to address a specific and relatively unique issue involving the use of one particular device (the typewriter), it's not too much of a stretch to say that a different device wouldn't require such a design characteristic. Again, not perfect, but certainly the most provable of the answers.

#officialexplanation

[mrudula_2005]

(A) is very tempting, but can we say that "most" people typed faster with non-QWERTY keyboards? No. We can't even say "many" people did so -- the text only informs us that people can double typing speed. We also know most people are used to QWERTY keyboards -- perhaps we have the potential to type faster with a non-QWERTY, that doesn't mean many of us would actually type faster.

An analogous scenario we can imagine has to do w/meters vs yards. Meters make a lot more sense, and they can help one understand distance better. However, if you are more used to yards, and you've used yards your whole life, thinking in terms of meters might not be easier for you, and you may not be faster at making computations using meters.

Hmm, I thought (A) mostly was wrong because it did not specify that these non-QWERTY keyboards were "more efficient than QWERTY" as the stimulus requires. For all we know, all non-QWERTY keyboards could be even LESS user friendly than QWERTY.

That being said, if (A) instead said, "Many (or Some) people who have tried typing with more efficient non-QWERTY keyboards have typed significantly more quickly using those keyboards than they usually have done using QWERTY keyboards", it would be a better answer than (E), no? That is 100% provable, no? Because the stimulus explicitly states that "Experiments have shown that keyboard configurations more efficient than QWERTY can double typing speed..." - so at least those experimenters can count towards my revamped version of (A), right?

I don't know, I really feel like (E) is a terrible answer still...I hate it when they do this!

thank you

[mrudula_2005]

(E) is not perfect -- perhaps early computers could have posed issues that required limiting typing speed. However, since we're told this characteristic (QWERTY) was designed to address a specific and relatively unique issue involving the use of one particular device (the typewriter), it's not too much of a stretch to say that a different device wouldn't require such a design characteristic. Again, not perfect, but certainly the most provable of the answers.

but we aren't told this, right?

also, this kind of thinking (making unwarranted assumptions) would shoot us in the foot on many other question types, so I don't know why they are increasingly including these loose and far from airtight 'most strongly supported' questions! so annoying. haha

ps I posted another question a post above

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Great comments, and I'll try my best to address your concerns - again, please don't hesitate to keep the conversation going if I haven't --

With (A), I definitely agree the answer would be far more attractive with "Some" instead of "Most." And the version you created, if it had been there, would I would venture to say be more provable than (E). And you are smart to pick up on the "more efficient than QWERTY" part -- you are absolutely right in thinking there might not be any keyboards like that that people use!

One caveat I would add is that it is a bit dangerous to be overly matchy in terms of looking for a match between argument and answer -- I imagine you already know this, but, based on the wording, they can conclude something that seems perhaps broader than the argument.

For example, let's say the argument had said instead, "Experiments have shown that keyboard configs more efficient than QWERTY do help some people type faster."

We could have an answer that isn't as specific about the keyboard configurations but still correct: "Some people type faster on non-QWERTY keyboards than QWERTY keyboards." This would still be correct, right?

In terms of (E), again, I know this is a very subtle problem --

You are right to be careful not to let this q mess up your thinking about what needs to be assumed, etc.

Notice in the argument that early typewriters were designed a particular way because of a particular trait -- the jamming. It is the "because" part that makes this less of an assumption.

To illustrate, let's think of two simple arguments --

1. "Fred, who has a unique knee problem, got a unique brace."

2. "Fred, because he has a unique knee problem, got a unique brace."

Now let's evaluate the conclusion, "Therefore, Wilma, who doesn't have the same knee problem, won't get the unique brace."

This conclusion would absolutely not be provable per argument #1.

This conclusion is far more provable with argument #2. If she doesn't have the specific situation that required the specific remedy, it's unlikely she will need the remedy.

Would the conclusion be 100% provable? Not even close. Hey, she could have some other issue that would be solving using the same unique brace.

And that's the same case with (E). However, because the original argument itself involved the "because" issue, and because (E) presents a situation where that "because" reason is taken away, (E) is most strongly supported.

Hope that helps!

[pinkdatura]

Hey, guys, nice discussion! I learn a lot from it.
For E, I am wondering if my logic is right:
design for computers-->not for early typewriters-->not easily jam frequently-->adjacent key won't stuck in quick succession-->no need to limit typing speed?

Gee, this question is so tough for me, I could never get it right

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I think your reasoning seems pretty sound, but you want to make sure you don't think about this sort of argument in terms of absolutes -- i.e. you don't want to confuse a question like this, which requires a subjective understanding of the situation, with a question that tests a "pure" understanding of conditional logic (things that must be true or false).

The second point I'll add is this is NOT the type of question for which you should expect to predict an answer. So, don't think you have to predict such a path as you described in order to get this right. Think more about what is NOT supported by the information given. It's far easier to show the other four answers are not supported than to show that this one is. Then, down to one or two attractive answers, at that point see if you can reasonably support your choice.

[shaynfernandez]

E was one of the first choices I dismissed because the stimulus says "QWERTY was originally designed to be awkward and limit speed on type writers and computer keyboards"
So I used that to eliminate answer E which says "if the keyboard had been designed for computers, then it would not be designed to limit speed"

... Am I missing something?

[xingdavid]

E was one of the first choices I dismissed because the stimulus says "QWERTY was originally designed to be awkward and limit speed on type writers and computer keyboards"
So I used that to eliminate answer E which says "if the keyboard had been designed for computers, then it would not be designed to limit speed"

... Am I missing something?

I made the same mistake during my timed run-through. The stimulus begins by saying that currently, typewriters and computer keyboards use the QWERTY configuration. In the same sentence, it then says that this configuration originated from the need to limit typing speed. It never says that the QWERTY configuration was designed to address a computer related issue though. In fact, in the very next sentence, it states that the QWERTY configuration arose from an issue specifically related to typewriters, and this configuration simply continued to be used afterwards. Therefore, the QWERTY configuration was never designed for computers.

[alena21century]

I was debating between A and E and chose A, but I see now why it is wrong. We cannot conclude from the information in the stimulus that most people who tried typing with non-QWERTY keyboards typed significantly faster. The stimulus lets us know that non-QWERTY keyboards have not attained widespread use, but it does not tell us that they were only available for experiments. That includes the possibility that they might have been produced and sold in small quantities at some point in time. In this case we have now idea how fast could most people who tried them typed. Even if they were available only for experiments, that does not tell us that most people doubled their typing. It only tells us that non-QWERTY keyboards can double the speed. That could mean that only 1% of the people participating in the experiments significantly increased their speed.

I guess, the answer choice E is correct for the reason that computer keyboards do not jam like typewriters. And, although not perfect, it is the best answer. After all, the question stem does not ask us to find the answer that follows logically. This is an inductive, rather than deductive reasoning question. So, the information in the stimulus can give some support, but does not have to 100% prove the answer.

[MatthewC316]

We are told that keyboard configurations more efficient than QWERTY can double typing speed while tremendously reducing typing effort. Is this not a tremendous benefit to society? I chose D.

I agree with the earlier poster that it's very frustrating to be told, on questions like these, that certain assumptions are warranted or even necessary, when incorrectly making the same types of assumptions is often the difference between a wrong answer and a CR on other questions.

However, after reading through this thread again, it appears the key is to be willing to make assumptions like these on "most strongly supported" questions and not questions where we are completing a logical puzzle.

[krisk743]

How can anyone here not have spoken about C....or claim it's not nearly as provable?

It uses the EXACT REASONING that was given for justifying why people used QWERTY format. And then E brings up computers, that may be ok for "MSS" questions but still just random knowledge and ignores the fact that computers can get frozen/jammed up too. Because if you're going to say that the typing won't freeze a computer then you're just bringing in outside knowledge again - which the lsat tells us not to do.

[PhoebeL747]

I still don't get why E is supported. How do we know early computers didn't have jamming problem? if they were from the same era as early typewriters, they're likely to have the same technological barriers right?

[ohthatpatrick]

Typewriters existed for many, many decades before computers (the sort of computers that have keyboards didn't come out until the 1980s .... typewriters have existed probably since 1900).

Computers are electronic, not mechanical. When you type a "k" on a computer, a "k" does not appear on a piece of paper. There's no physical imprint. It's digital, on a screen. We know that there aren't hammers making the "k" appear on the screen.

So the keyboard on a computer, common sense says, wouldn't have a similar hammer problem.

And typewriters were a much more primitive form of technology than computers, so "early typewriters" would definitely have existed before there were any computers.

As for the previous poster's concern about (C),
I think that (C) proposes a much more far-fetched idea, which is harder to defend.

I'm sure NASA scientists foresee the possibility that technology may one day allow us to travel to another planetary body without taking a space shuttle.

But they're still going to have to build the space shuttle if they want to do anything in the meantime, because the space shuttle is how today's technology solves the problem of space travel.

You might also say that video game designers FORESEE that virtual reality games will one day obviate the need for the directional thumbpad/joystick.

But they will still currently design video games for controllers that use the thumbpad/joystick technology.

Both (C) and (E) are saying, "if it had been otherwise ... we wouldn't have speed-limting QWERTY."

LSAT is testing our ability to hone in on the causal difference maker.

On Inference questions and in RC passages, the text uses causal language like because of, due to, this allows, this makes possible, this leads to, and [comma + -ing] "consequence" modifiers in order to highlight these causal difference makers.

A common inference LSAT likes to test is
"Without that causal difference-maker, we wouldn't have seen what we saw."

In this stim, the second sentence begins This was because ... .

The causal difference-maker for why we chose to use QWERTY was that "early typewriters would jam".

If we foresee that technology will one day make typewriters not jam, it doesn't change the fact that we're still stuck with early typewriters that do jam, so we better still design QWERTY.

If we're designing for a computer, then we no longer have to worry that "early typewriters would jam".

Hope this helps.