Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. The argument isn't about compensation for medical costs, so this answer is out of scope. While businesses that are held accountable are sometimes required to pay these, responsibility isn't the same as compensation. Additionally, this answer doesn't state who should compensate these employees.

Incorrect. So close! However, in stating that manufacturers should be held accountable "only for" preventable harm, this answer sets up a necessary condition for responsibility, not a sufficient one. This answer is a reversal of the principle needed for the argument to work. (This answer would justify a conclusion that a company shouldn't be held responsible based on a situation where the harm wasn't preventable.)

Incorrect. The stimulus established that the manufacturer wasn't aware of the health risks at the time of exposure, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The potential preventability of the illnesses are listed as a reason to hold the manufacturer responsible, so this answer stating that preventability is irrelevant to responsibility is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
T causes health issues, and we didn't know that when it was first made. But the manufacturer could have known it and prevented these illnesses if it had studied T, so the manufacturer is responsible for the illnesses.

Answer Anticipation:
Principle (Strengthen) questions usually ask you to justify a judgment made in the conclusion of an argument based on the details of a described situation.

Here, the judgment in the conclusion is that a manufacturer should be held responsible for illnesses caused by a substance it manufactured. Interestingly, the stimulus raises a reason they shouldn't be and rules it out (they didn't know!) before giving the reason that they should be held responsible (they could have known and prevented the illnesses).

Since we're trying to justify holding the manufacturer responsible, that reason they should arguably be absolved of responsibility probably won't factor in. Instead, we should focus on the reason that they should be held responsible—if they had studied the substance, they would have known it wasn't safe and could have prevented the illnesses. The correct answer should connect these ideas:

If someone could have known one of their products caused illnesses and prevented them, then they should be held responsible for those illnesses.

Answer Explanation:
The stimulus establishes that the illnesses could have been prevented if the manufacturer investigated the safety of T. This answer establishes that, based on that, the manufacturer should be held responsible, justifying the conclusion of this argument.

Key Takeaway:
Principle (Strengthen) questions connect the details from the scenario to the judgment in the conclusion. Start with what that judgment is, work backwards, and then find an answer that matches.