Consumer: If you buy a watch at a department store and use it only in the way it was intended to be used, but the wa...
AnanyaKJune 14, 2018
D over C
I chose C for this question and I understand why it's wrong however I don't understand why D is correct. In the argument it says that if you buy a watch at a department store and then continued to explain that Binghams jewelry store is not a department store. Isn't if you buy a watch at a department store one of the sufficient conditions as well as only if the watch was used as intended. We are never told that the jewelry store is a department store in fact we are explicitly told that it is not so how can we choose D as the correct answer when only if it was used the way it was intended to be used is not enough to conclude that a refund should be given? Should we assume from the statement in the argument that says by this very reasonable standard that the conditions for a refund at a department store should also apply to Binghams store? I am struggling with how we can make those kind of assumptions/jumps.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
@Ananyak, you're getting at the point by bringing up "by this very reasonable standard" phrase. We can deduce from the argument that the individual purchased a watch from Binghams store which is NOT in a department store, that the watch quit working the next day, and the consumer is now arguing that he or she should be given a refund. The consumer is arguing that (in essence) "if I had bought this at a department store and only used it as intended, they would give me a refund because it quit working the next day. Therefore, since this standard is fair, even though you're not a department store, you should give me a refund because I just bought it yesterday, and it quit working today." However, the consumer does not specify whether he or she used the watch only as intended, so you're missing part of the puzzle, which is what the question is asking you to fill in.
To be clear, you're only evaluating the consumer's logic and not guaranteeing that Binghams will give the refund. The consumer is making the leap from department store to Binghams in the hopes that the person they're dealing with at Binghams will appreciate the parallel and give a refund. However, the conclusion that Binghams should give a refund does not follow if the consumer caused the watch to fail by using it as a hammer (not its intended purpose). Using the watch only as intended is a condition of getting a refund at a department store, so for the consumer to reach the conclusion that Binghams should give a refund relies on the assumption that (D) the consumer did not use the watch in a way contrary to its intended purpose.
Whether or not Binghams accepts the argument and process a refund is irrelevant, therefore the leap from department store to Binghams is not at issue. You're simply trying to complete the consumer's argument which was missing a key premise.
Does that make sense?
AnanyaKJune 23, 2018
Yes that makes complete sense. Thank you so much for your help!
