#13- Consumers seek to purchase highest quality

[akanshalsat]

Hey!

I got this question right without diagramming, bc for some reason it just made sense and linked up in my head correctly that if those companies who dont offer products which attract customers go bankrupt, and the companies that dont offer best quality nor lowest prices go bankrupt, then it must be that companies that don't offer best quality nor lowest prices don't attract the customers.

I'm a little stressed however because looking at C now, I can see how on a real exam and under major time constraints I can get confused and choose that.

After diagramming I can see how C would be a mistaken negation, but just in case I don't have time to diagram, is there anything I could have thought of in my head alone to stop me from choosing C over B when linking them in my head?

[Adam Tyson]

After diagramming I can see how C would be a mistaken negation, but just in case I don't have time to diagram...

Why wouldn't you have time to diagram, akanshalsat? If I were to put on my "tough love" hat, I would say that it sounds like you are saying "I don't have time to get the right answer because I am too busy getting wrong ones". I'm not picking on you - I say that to everyone who ever says something about not having time to do things the right way, to prephrase, to sort losers and contenders, and to confidently and accurately pick the best answer. If you don't have time to do a diagram of a complex conditional stimulus (and it's not one that you can easily diagram in your head), that means that you are doing the last question that you are going to do for the section you are working on and you have less than 30 seconds remaining. If you have more time than that, then you have time to do a diagram and ensure a right answer! Otherwise, that means you are rushing, trying to cram in a few answers without being careful and accurate. What's the point of that? Work at your most accurate pace and no faster, ever, and while you may end up answering fewer questions that way, you will end up with more correct answers.

Now, all that said, there is something you can do here and on many, many LR questions that will save you time and make diagramming a little less necessary sometimes. That's to take note of anything new that shows up in the conclusion. In this case, the new element is not offering best quality or lowest price. Now, connect that to something that was in the premises but not in the conclusion - in this case, that would be attracting consumers. Notice that going bankrupt is common to the premise and the conclusion, so that's not going to be an essential element of the correct answer.

Now that you can see the two "rogue" elements, connect them! Find an answer that links attracting consumers to offering best quality or lowest prices. Only answer B does that, so pick it and move along! What's wrong with answer C? It talks about bankruptcy, which we didn't need (because it was common to both the premise and the conclusion), and it left out attracting consumers (which we needed).

When a diagram is called for and would help you, do it! Take the time to do things the right way so that you can confidently and accurately select the right answer. Never rush!

[gstf]

Could you explain why D is incorrect? I chose B because it just seemed more relevant, but D also seems like it could be assumed. If consumers bought out of brand loyalty, then they would continue to buy products even if they are not the best/cheapest. Is it because D is a required assumption and not something to be assumed after reading the question?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi gstf,

Since this is a Justify (i.e. sufficient assumption) question, the correct answer must, when added to the other premises in the stimulus, definitively prove the conclusion of the argument. Answer choice D is not strong enough to have that impact. Rather, as you've correctly stated, answer choice D is an Assumption (i.e. necessary assumption) answer. There must be at least some consumers who will not continue to patronize the company out of brand loyalty, because otherwise how would the company go bankrupt? But, just because there are some such consumers (i.e., at least one) that doesn't necessarily mean the company will certainly go bankrupt. After all, what if it was just one such consumer? That probably wouldn't do much to the company. Thus, answer choice D is not strong enough to prove the prediction in the conclusion.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[gstf]

It didn't occur to me that it was a sufficient assumption question; it makes sense with that in mind; thank you for your help.

[Jeremy Press]

Totally makes sense, gstf! Keep an eye on whether there’s an “if” in the question stem: you’ll never see that in an Assumption (necessary assumption) question. So that can be a clear signal for you!

[gmsanch3]

Hello, I have a really hard time with Justify questions and conditional reasoning. The issue for me is not diagramming the conditions but figuring out how to connect them. In this question I just couldn’t see how to connect everything. I see how in B uses the new element from the premises, but I dont see how to connect it to the other conditions. This is how i diagrammed the conditions in the premises:


-offer products to attract cust—>bankrupt

-best quality
Nor —> bankrupt
-lowest price

ANSWER B is
-High Quality
Nor —> -Attract Customers
-Lowest Price

I dont see how to connect the premises and answer.

I chose A but that was just a guess. I panicked after i diagrammed and since I couldn’t make the connection to the correct answer i rushed and went to next question. This is usually the case for me with justify questions that have conditional reasoning. Please help

[gmsanch3]

Hello, I wanted to refine my last question above because I want to ask an additional question that I think will help me with this topic in general. I also wanted to use abstract letters because I find it helps me better when learning:

Premise: -A —> B

Conclus: -C
nor —> B
-D

Answer: -C
nor —> -A
-D

I understand how the diagraming works, its the linking things together that I have a hard time with because for example, in this question, does NOT C nor D have to be the sufficient conditions? Could the answer have connected it like this:

-A—>-C
Nor
-D
I know there wasn’t an answer like this, but I think this is the general issue I have with justify questions. I get lost in how to link everything. I’m wondering if in a scenario like this where there are 2 sufficient conditions that separately require ‘B’, since they aren’t linked in the premises, could it have been diagrammed as i stated above with -A as sufficient? I’m sorry if this isn’t making sense. I really need help linking conditional statements with justify questions

[Adam Tyson]

You might benefit from a version of the mechanistic approach, gmsanch3, which goes like this:

If you have a conditional premise and a conditional conclusion, and they have the same sufficient conditions but different necessary conditions, you can justify the conclusion by making the necessary condition in the premise sufficient for the necessary condition in the conclusion.

That's a mouthful, but it boils down to this visual:

Premise: A B

Conclusion: A C

Justify answer: B C

On the other hand, if you have a conditional premise and a conditional conclusion, and they have the same necessary conditions but different sufficient conditions, you can justify the conclusion by making the sufficient condition in the conclusion sufficient for the sufficient condition in the premise. That looks like this:

Premise: A B

Conclusion: C B

Justify answer: C A

Memorize and follow these formulas and you should have no trouble remembering which way to make the connections! And it should not matter if there is a multi-conditional with an "and" or an "or," because the arrows will still go the same way. And be aware that in either case you can use the contrapositive of that prephrase. In that second example, that would be:

A C

[gmsanch3]

Wow! Thank you! I will memorize this!