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

shunhe on August 17, 2020

Hi @Alie,

Thanks for the question! Let’s take a look at the arguments first. Flynn tells us that letting people collect large damage awards after suing big corporations that make dangerous products benefits consumers, since it gives corporations a good reason to make their products more safe.

Garcie then responds by saying that without sensible limits, the damages can be high enough to destroy the corporations, and when that happens, people lose their jobs and the corporation can’t make anything. This hurts the economy and therefore consumers.

So now we’re asked for how Garcie responds to Flynn’s argument. (E) tells us that she provides an alternative explanation for a situation described in Flynn’s argument. Well, the situation described in Flynn’s argument is people suing big companies for making dangerous stuff and getting large damage awards. Does Garcie give an alternative explanation of this? No, not really. She’s just taking it to its extremes. They’re talking about the same thing, not giving alternative explanations for something. And that’s what makes (E) wrong.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.