PrepTest 146

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
F: Large damages gives businesses a reason to make safe products, so these damages help consumers.

G: Large damages cause bankruptcy, which causes unemployment, which causes the economy to suffer, thus harming consumers.

Answer Anticipation:
Both Flynn and Garcia discuss the impact of large damage awards on consumers, taking the opposite view—Flynn thinks they protect and thus benefit consumers; Garcia thinks they hurt the economy and thus hurt consumers.

How does Garcia go about disagreeing with Flynn? Well, Garcia doesn't address the premise of Flynn's argument—she never states whether she thinks that the threat of such damages does cause corporations to make safer products. However, she does bring up a separate consideration—a chain of events that large damage awards can kick off that would result in the opposite effect (harm to consumers). The correct answer should highlight that Garcia brings up separate considerations to reach a different conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't go into nearly as much detail as we did in our anticipation, but that's fine! Flynn argues in favor of allowing large damage awards; Garcia argues that it would have undesirable consequences (bankruptcy; unemployment; economic damage). This answer correctly describes Garcia's rebuttal, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
In any of these questions that require you to describe something about an argument—primarily Argument Structure and Methods of Reasoning questions—your anticipation will often be more or less specific than the correct answer. That's fine! Just make sure that you're using your anticipation as a guide to eliminate answers that don't line up with it, but dive into any answer that does.

Incorrect. Flynn's premise is that the threat of large damages causes corporations to reduce the danger of their products. Garcia doesn't address this, instead focusing on the downsides of allowing such damages.

Incorrect. This answer describes a common method of reasoning where the second speaker uses the first speaker's argument against them (a reduction to the absurd, or reductio ad absurdum if you're fancy). Garcia doesn't address Flynn's argument at all, though, instead bringing up her own premises to support the opposite conclusion.

Incorrect. Both speakers are dealing with just a single policy—allowing large damage awards. As such, Garcia doesn't bring up a second policy inconsistent with Flynn's views.

Incorrect. Flynn doesn't really describe a situation, and Garcia doesn't provide an alternative explanation for it.