#17 - Consumer: If you buy a watch at a department store and

[ehilliard]

Hi,

My prephrase for this question centered on the idea that the consumer was assuming a non department store should have the same watch policies as a department store. This prephrase drew me to answer B.

Is the issue with B the fact that "same length of time" is too strong? That the policy only accounts for 1 day of typical use?

Thanks for your help,
Erin

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, ehilliard,

Yes, I see what you mean. That was just where my mind went when I first read this question also. Just goes to show you that prephrasing, while valuable, isn't 100% certain to steer you in the right direction. (It still works enough that you should always do it!)

The issue with B is that it leaves out the crucial aspect of what D includes: using the watch "only in the way it was intended to be used". We don't know that the consumer only used the watch in the way it was intended to be used - perhaps he used it to test his new sledgehammer.

B isn't a necessary assumption. Use the Assumption Negation technique and negate B (both watches cannot be expected to keep working for the same length of time), you'll see that it doesn't harm the conclusion the way doing that to D does (the consumer did use the watch in a contrary way).

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[ehilliard]

Hi Lucas,

Good to know my prephrase wasn't too off base then!

I do see what you mean with the crucial element of how the watch was used. The Assumption Negation technique does make D superior. I will make sure to be more diligent about using that even if I feel confident in my prephrase!

Thanks!
Erin

[karen_k]

Hi,

I was stuck between B and D and ended up choosing B because I thought D wasn't enough in that it doesn't explain any possible differences between a department store watch and a jewelry store watch. I am confused as to why that's not a necessary part of the assumption. Thank you!

[Anthony Esposito]

Hi Karen,

For this question, we need to find the "bare minimum" that needs to be sufficient for a department store giving you a refund. Those three sufficient conditions, found in the first sentence are (1) You buy the watch at a department store, (2) you use it only in the way it was intended to be used, and (3) the watch stops working the next day. Only if all three of those sufficient conditions are met do we get the necessary condition: The department store refunds your money.

In the customer's scenario, he or she wants a refund, but let's see what's left out of the consumer's explicit argument that he or she is due a refund on this malfunctioning watch. Consumer basically says, "let's pretend Bingham's Jewelry Store is a department store" and the watch I bought from them stopped working the next day, therefore I deserve a refund.

What has the consumer left out from our three sufficient conditions that are necessary for the refund? Well, that's Answer Choice (D): That he/she did not use the watch in a way contrary to the way it was intended to be used. That's that "bare minimum" thing that has to be true for the consumer's argument to be valid.

Regarding Answer Choice (B), it goes too far for us. We don't have to assume that watches purchased at both places can be expected to keep working for about the same length of time. That statement just doesn't necessarily have to be true for the consumer's argument to work. One watch or the other could typically last much longer and it doesn't change the validity of the consumer's argument. The key is the missing part about not using the watch in a way contrary to the way it is to be used.

Tough question, but I hope that helps,
Anthony

[karen_k]

Thank you Anthony! This makes a lot more sense now.

[nutcracker]

Hello,

Could someone explain how applying the Assumption Negation Technique to answer choice (C) would not weaken the argument? I think "a seller does not have to refund the money that was paid for a product if the product does not perform as the purchaser expected it to perform" would actually weaken the consumer's claim to refund, but at the same time (D) is definitely the best choice. Does this mean that Assumption Negation Technique doesn't always help us rule out all the inferior answer choices? Thanks!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Answer choice (C) is much too broad for the consumer's argument. This answer choice would apply to all products, not just watches. Since we are looking for a necessary assumption, we should strike this one out right away.

I say this because applying the Assumption Negation Technique on this answer choice is a little tricky. I would render the logically negation of choice (C) as "a seller is not always* obligate to refund the money that was paid for any* product that if it doesn't perform as expected." I included the two italicized words as emphasis so that you can see that the negation of this answer choice leaves open the possibility that a seller is still obligated when the product is a watch. This negation only tells us that a seller is not obligated in all cases of any product.

[sxzhao]

I'm sorry but I found this question and the correct answer insane...

In the team's explanation above, and multiple others I browsed online, it's mentioned in the instruction something like "let's just take it that the consumer quoted thinks the department store policy should apply to the jewlry store"... but why? How does it make sense to interpret the stimulus in a way that's outright contrary to what it actually says, i.e., "BJS NOT being a department store"

I ended up choosing C, because it was clear that the department policy shouldn't be applying to a non-department store, so there must be some other line of reasoning that justifies the conclusion. From the stimulus, the one thing we can be sure of, besides BJS isn't a department store, is that the customer wants a refund because his watch stopped working. C is the closest among all answer choices that can get me there.

Woukld really appreciate a response here!

[Adam Tyson]

Some arguments require many assumptions, sxzhao, and this is one such argument. It's clear that the author assumes that the jewelry store ought to follow the same rules as a department store, and that of course would have been a reasonable prephrase. That was my prephrase, and Lucas, back at the beginning of this thread, said the same.

But that's not the ONLY necessary assumption of the argument. In order for the rule to apply, the author ALSO has to assume that they used the watch only the way it was intended to be used, because if they did not, then even if the same rule applied to jewelry stores, the rule would not require the store to give them a refund. So, while a different answer that was based on that first assumption would have worked, answer D is also a necessary assumption, and therefore the correct answer.

It's not asking for the one and only assumption required by the argument, nor is it asking for the single most important assumption, if there is such a thing. It's just asking for one required assumption, and answer D is the only answer that provides one.