#10 - Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen-CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

This is a strengthen question, so what we need to do is find the answer that most helps out the argument. In evaluating the stimulus of strengthen questions, we usually want to look for minor flaws in the argument which may need to be filled. One possible flaw in this stimulus is that we do not know why the current rating system is not sufficient. Is there a reason why the "three and up" label does not provide sufficient information to parents? This is the type of question you want to have in your mind going into a strengthen question.

Answer Choice (A): This is answer choice, if anything, would weaken the consumer advocate's argument, as it could be used to support the idea that safety labels on many toys would be unnecessary.

Answer Choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This answer demonstrates a flaw in the current system, in that the current labels do not provide enough information. If parents believe that the current labels have nothing to do with safety, they may buy unsafe toys for the children unwittingly. Even worse, the natural inclination of parents to believe that there child is advanced may lead them to buy toys that are not safe for their child's age.

Answer Choice (C): While this may help the argument somewhat, it is not as helpful as Answer Choice (B). It could be argued that this information strengthens the argument because the youngest children need the most protection and are currently suffering the most from any inadequacies in the current labeling system. However, the stimulus is aimed at labeling toys for children of all ages, and this answer, therefore, does not do as much to assist the argument as Answer Choice (B).

Answer Choice (D): This would, if anything, weaken the consumer advocate's argument, as it would imply that even if the new labels were placed on toys, they would be ignored by parents.

Answer Choice (E): The stimulus is aimed at protecting children from unsafe toys in general, not just those toys that present choking hazards. Therefore, this answer choice does not strengthen the overall argument.

[cindyhylee87]

Hi,

I picked B after eliminating other 4 answer choices. However, I am not sure why B is the correct answer.

Here is my explanation of why (B) is correct: if parents think that current toy labels contain nothing about safety information as answer (B) mentioned, then, when toy labels provide clearer information regarding safety, they would make parents aware of the safety information carried by them, and parents could prevent injuries almost entirely as conclusion of the stimulus mentioned.

Let me know if I am heading to the right direction.

Thanks,
Cindy

[Adam Tyson]

That's correct, Cindy! If parents think current labels are not about safety but about cognitive skill, they might disregard them and buy toys that are unsafe for their kids because they think the kids will be smart enough to use them or maybe that they will grow into using them. If we put more explicit safety info on the labels, those parents might wise up and not buy unsafe toys that they would otherwise have bought.

You got it! Good work!

[JocelynL]

Hello,
At first I didn't see the causal conclusion in the stimulus. can you please let me know if my diagram is correct:

C - labels provide explicit safety information
E - prevent injuries almost entirely

Can you show why B is the right answer based on the ways to strengthen a causal argument? I'm struggling to see it.

Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

Jocelyn,

The stimulus thinks that the lack of explicit safety information is causing parents to be less cautious than they should be. It doesn't explain why the age information is not causing parents to be appropriately cautious, nor why making the safety information explicit would change the situation. Answer choice (B) is explaining why the age information is not producing the effect of making parents more cautious - they are not interpreting the age information as safety-related, but as cognitive-ability-related. That answer is really showing that there is a relevant difference between age information and explicit safety information that affects the use parents will make of the information. Because age information is not making parents take appropriate action because of a misinterpretation, a way of presenting that info explicit should help.

I think this could be viewed as a "when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur" situation. The cause is "explicit safety info." When we don't have EXPLICIT safety info, parents aren't using the age info in the same way they would have used explicit safety info. Imagine the opposite - if parents got age info, but used that age info every way they would have used explicit safety info (were that to be available), then the suggested change in info won't have the appropriate effect. Answer choice (B) is showing that, if we lack explicit safety info (as we do now) and the available info is not relevantly like safety info (in that it's not interpreted as safety info), the effect (safer kids) is not present.

Robert Carroll