Hi @DanielDePasquale, @BOOMshakalaka, @annasc, and @zarin,
Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at the stimulus first. A quality control investigator is telling us that after testing samples of products, over 20% of them were defective. And then we’re told that the supplier has to limit the rate of defects to below 5%, so it has violated its contract (the conclusion in this stimulus).
Now we’re asked for the flaw in the quality control investigator’s argument. And (A) tells us that this flaw is that the conclusion is baes on too small a sample of items tested by the laboratory. But where were we told how many samples were tested by the laboratory? We weren’t. It could be 100 items, it could be 10,000, we have no clue. And we don’t know what percentage of the total it is either. All we know is that the samples were sent “from various manufacturing locations.” But since nothing in the stimulus actually indicates the samples are too small, we can’t just conclude that, and that’s why (A) isn’t going to be the correct flaw here.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
