Advertisement: Clark brand-name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country. They satisfy all of our governm...

Naz September 19, 2014

Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.

The conclusion of the argument is: "be smart and insist on brand-name parts by Clark for your car."

Why? We know that Clark brand-name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country. Clark parts go through and satisfy all of "our" government automotive tests, which are the toughest such tests in the world. Further, we are told that we never can know which foreign-made part is reliable and which is a cheap look-alike that is poorly constructed and liable to cost you hundreds of dollars in repairs.

Answer choice (B) states: "foreign-made parts are not suitable for cars manufactured in this country."

Does this strengthen the argument? Yes. If foreign-made parts are not suitable for cars manufactured in this country, then it supports the conclusion that you should, instead, buy Clark parts for your car.

Does the negation of this answer choice make the argument fall apart? No. Negation: foreign-made parts are suitable for cars manufactured in this country.

Even if foreign-made parts were suitable for cars manufactured in this country, that still doesn't address the fact that we can never "know which foreign-made part is reliable and which is a cheap look-alike that is poorly constructed and liable to cost you hundreds of dollars in repairs."

So, regardless of foreign-made parts being suitable for cars manufactured in this country, there are other reasons why we should still choose Clark parts. Therefore, the negation of this answer choice does not make the argument fall apart.

Answer choice (D) states: "parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts."

Does this strengthen? Yes. We know that Clark parts satisfy the government standards. We also know that the issue with foreign-made parts is that you never know which are poorly constructed and liable to cost you hundreds of dollars. If those parts that satisfy the government standards are not as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts, then Clark parts are more reliable, which strengthens the conclusion that the smart decision is to go with Clark parts.

Does the negation of this answer choice make the argument fall apart? Yes. Negation: parts that satisfy our government standards are as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts.

Remember, the reason why the argument says we should go with Clark parts as opposed to foreign-made parts is that foreign-made parts can be poorly constructed. However, if parts that satisfy the government standards, i.e. Clark parts, are as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts, then the arguments reasoning as to why you shouldn't go with foreign-made parts breaks down. Thus, the negation of this answer choice makes the argument fall apart.

So our correct answer is answer choice (D).



Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

stormbeeler November 9, 2015

Would the negation of c show that at least one foreign made part satisfies government standards thus doing nothing for the argument?

Adam-Estacio March 22, 2019

Why not E? Doesn't that answer both strengthen the passage and won't it's negation make the argument fall apart?