#1 - Commentator: In last week’s wreck involving one of Acme

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (E)

This commentator discusses a recent train wreck in which an engineer on one of Acme Engine’s
older trains lost control after hitting a fuel shutdown switch with his knee. Acme Engines claims that
the company is not responsible, because it was unaware of the risks associated with having such a
switch at knee level.

The company has, however, changed this design in its newer locomotives, claiming that this move
was based on considerations of simple inconvenience. The commentator takes issue with this claim,
asserting that the company would not have spent half a million dollars on relocating the switches
merely in the interest of convenience.

This appears to be a well-reasoned argument; it might be odd for a company to spend $500,000 to
make major changes in response to a mere inconvenience. The question that follows asks what point
is being made by the commentator’s statements regarding the costly relocation of the fuel-shutoff
switches. The reason the commentator makes that point is clearly to imply that the company must
have known about the safety hazard in order to have decided on a half-million dollar expenditure to
relocate the switches.

Answer choice (A): This language is far too strong to describe the role played by the mention of
the change made to Acme’s newer engines. The commentator does not argue that the engineer is
free from all responsibility—the commentator brings up the change in order to suggest that Acme
Engines had already known about the dangers that were associated with the previously used fuelshutoff
switches. While this may reflect Acme’s prior knowledge of the hazard, it does not prove
that the engineer had absolutely no responsibility—it is possible that Acme and the Engineer share
responsibility.

Answer choice (B): The point about the relocation of the switches is to suggest that the older models
are more hazardous, and that Acme had prior knowledge of the situation. This certainly does not
suggest that the accident would have occurred regardless of the knee-level switches, as provided by
this answer choice. On the contrary, the commentator appears to believe that changing the layout of
the affected engine may have made a difference.

Answer choice (C): The train wreck occurred because the engineer accidentally struck the
fuel shutoff switch with his knee. There might be some question as to who ultimately bears
responsibility, but the point about the $500,000 expenditure is intended to show that Acme was
previously trying to correct the problem and thus must have been aware of it. This expenditure was
not mentioned to explain why the wreck occurred.

Answer choice (D): The commentator does not mention the expensive change in order to show
that the switches are safe. The commentator believes that they are hazardous; the point is that the
knee-level switches were sufficiently hazardous to justify the company’s $500,000 spent to alter the
layout.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The commentator makes the point about the
costly switch relocation in order to suggest that Acme had already been aware of the safety hazards
associated with the knee-level switches even before the recent wreck.

[cardinal2017]

Hi,

this is a Describe the Function question and I got this wrong initially while I could get it right in my second try.

I chose (C) initially despite thinking between (C) and (E).

I thought (C) is what the point in question tries to telegraph eventually.

That's because we can see that if Acme paid such amount to relocate switches in newer machines, then it must be that switches in older machines have to do with the accident, or the wreck.

Considering the fact in question, we could elicit such finding.

However, in my second try after a week, I see why (E) makes a correct answer.

The question is what role the mention plays out, not what the mention ultimately means or what can be inferred from such mention.

The commentator mentioned this in order to conclude that "Acme is held liable for the wreck."

Also s/he mentioned it to refute the Acme's claim that they are not liable for the accident because they didn't know the knee-level switches were a hazard.

With the fact Acme spent the cool 500k on relocating switches, the commentator wants to indicate that Acme knows/admits the knee level switches were the problem or were what brought about the accident.

However, I still am doubtful why the answer choice (E) mentions Acme 'had been aware of the dangers' + 'before the wreck occurred.'

Maybe they relocated the switches because they realized the switches were the problem 'just now,' despite not knowing it before the accident.

Can anyone explain this?

Thank you in advance!

[Kristina Moen]

Hi cardinal,

This is a Method of Reasoning - Argument Part question. We are being asked about a specific sentence in the argument. What does it do? Why is it there? How does the author use that sentence in the argument? We are not inferring any additional facts or doing anything to the argument.

The first thing to do is to differentiate between a conclusion and a premise. Here, the conclusion is "Acme Engines should be held liable for last week’s wreck." So now the question is - How does the specific sentence ("Acme Engines spent $500,000 relocating knee-level switches in its newer locomotives") support that conclusion?

Well, Acme said it made those switches for the comfort of its engineers, not because of safety. But the author says they wouldn't have spent that much money for the comfort of their engineers. So it must be some other reason. What reason? We don't know, but the author is heavily hinting that it's because of safety. And thus, "Acme Engines should be held liable for last week’s wreck." So answer choice (E) is correct - while the author doesn't explicity say "They must have spent that much money because of safety," the author is using the fact that they spent so much money to indicate that they made the changes because of safety and not comfort and so were aware of the dangers before the accident.