One should only buy a frying pan that has a manufacturer's warranty, even if it requires paying more, and even if one...

Mazen on May 25, 2022

Hi,

In one of the previous posts, LSATMAX identifies the question as strengthen with sufficient premise.

Why and how does the answer-choice link up to the conditionals in the argument?

To me, it is just a strengthen question!

The question states: "The conclusion of the argument is strongly supported if which one of the following is assumed?"

Granted the "if" part states "if which one of the following is assumed," but the consequent of the "if" part, in the question, is to "strongly support the conclusion of the argument."

It does not say to have the conclusion be logically or properly drawn, just supported!

Moreover, I feel that the argument though has conditional terminology and formal logic, it nevertheless does not lend itself to conditional principles that are linkable.

Answer-choice A just creates a deterrent to the manufacturers from offering warranties on items that don't work well, or last long, because most people would as the result of the failure to work well or last long would seek reimbursement forcing the manufacturers into a situation that they want to avoid.

But there is no guarantee that the manufacturers would offer a warranty, in fact based on the stimulus, the manufacturers will not offer the warranty if it means for them to reimburse which answer-choice A posits!

Please let me know if I am mistaken!

Thank you

Emil-Kunkin on May 28, 2022

Hi Mazen,

The question stem is a good indication that we are dealing with a strengthen with sufficient question. This is one of the most common ways that the test will phrase a strengthened with sufficient question.

That said, the flaw is not really obvious, and in fact I don't think that I would have recognized the flaw unless I had read (A). The argument holds that a warranty guarantees quality because a manufacturer could not offer a warranty on a product that does not work well or last long. However, the argument is flawed as it fails to consider the possibility that a manufacturer could offer a warranty on a bad product if they were sure that very few people would actually use that warranty to ask for a refund. (A) completely fixes this flaw.

I agree that the argument does not lend itself too well to a formal understanding- and I think the following advice is true for almost every argument you will see: it is better to actually understand the argument- that is what the author is telling us and how they support the conclusion, than to have a pretty diagram of the formal logic. No diagram will help you to easily recognize the flaw here, but actually understanding the author's reasoning might make it much easier to see that A fixes the flaw, even if you did not recognize the flaw at first.

Mazen on May 28, 2022

Duly noted!

Thank You Emil