Consumer advocate: The manufacturer's instructions for assembling a product should be written in such a way that mos...

dannyod on May 2, 2020

How does C violate?

Doesn’t C still allow for the possibility that written instructions could still make assembly even easier, even though most ppl are able to do so easily without them? “Very easily” is not the penultimate of ease...

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

Already have an account? log in

BenMingov on May 8, 2020

Hi Dannyod, thanks for the question.

You're actually right. It still does allow for this possibility. However, this doesn't mean that it isn't correct. The question uses very loose wording and can be satisfied by a number of indefinite answers. We just need to pick the answer choice that makes it most possible to suggest that it's not always possible for manufacturers to make instructions that it much easier to build products than not having the instructions at all.

If people are able to build items with great ease, then it is hard for us to suspect that manufacturers should always write instructions that make it much easier to build products. The building is process is usually very easy already.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you'd like me to elaborate further!

dannyod on May 9, 2020

Ok thanks, I think I understand. It seems like the part of the question stem "strongest reason for thinking" gives the most grace for this being the correct answer. The answer doesn't have to provide a scenario that absolutely invalidates the principle, more so it just needs to raise suspicion for it's plausibility in all cases. Does that sound right?

More general question, is the looseness of this question stem atypical of most principle question stems?