Flynn: Allowing people to collect large damage awards when they successfully sue corporations that produce dangerous ...

hatemz on March 25, 2020

Can you explain B? also what type of question is this

I understand why A is right, but can someone explain why B is wrong? Also what type of question is this?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Victoria on March 25, 2020

Hi @hatemz,

Happy to help!

This is a methods of reasoning question. We are looking for the answer choice which identifies the methods of reasoning that Garcie uses in responding to Flynn's argument.

Flynn argues that allowing people to collect large damage awards when suing corporations in products liability cases is beneficial to consumers.

Why? Because the possibility of having to pay these large damage awards gives corporations a strong incentive to make their products safer.

Garcie disagrees with Flynn's conclusion by pointing out that allowing people to collect large damage awards can destroy corporations. This, in turn, would reduce productivity and increase unemployment, harming the economy and consumers as a result.

In this way, Garcie is undermining Flynn's ultimate conclusion i.e. that large damage awards will be beneficial to consumers.

Garcie does not address Flynn's premise that these damage awards provide strong incentives to improve the safety of their products, making answer choice (B) incorrect.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.