#9 - Advertisement: Clark brand-name parts are made for cars

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (D)

This advertisement concludes that to be smart, one should choose Clark brand-name parts. This conclusion is based on the following premises:

• Premise 1: The Clark parts satisfy the world’s toughest standards—our government tests.
  Premise 2: With foreign parts you may get poor construction that will necessitate repairs.
  Conclusion: To be smart, choose Clarks.

Although the ad does not specify the government standards, the assumption must be that the Clark parts which pass the government tests are better than foreign made parts.

Answer choice (A): There is no reference or implication to Clarks’ being available exclusively in this country, so this is not in assumption on which the ad relies.

Answer choice (B): The ad does not make the claim that foreign made parts are unsuitable—just that they may be poorly constructed.

Answer choice (C): The author does not claim that there are no foreign parts which satisfy our government standards, but just that with foreign parts, one runs the risk of poorly constructed parts that will lead to the need for repairs.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, reflecting the prephrased answer presented in the discussion of the stimulus above. If the ad is to base its conclusion on the premises presented, then the author must assume that Clark’s parts are better constructed than foreign made parts.

Answer choice (E): The ad claims that foreign parts may be poorly constructed—just because a part is made for a car that’s made here, that doesn’t keep it from being a foreign part. So those described in this answer choice, according to the ad may be of questionable construction as well. Thus, this cannot be an assumption on which the ad’s conclusion relies.

[dudleym]

Hi Powerscore,
I was able to narrow the answers choices down to D and E, but I'm still having trouble understanding exactly why E is wrong. Could someone please explain the difference?

Thanks
Michelle

[Adam Tyson]

Sure thing, Michelle! Answer E is mixing up what is meant in the stimulus by "foreign-made parts". The stimulus is talking about parts that are made outside this country - the parts themselves are foreign. Answer E, in contrast, is talking about the cars for which those parts are made! It assumes that if a part is made for a domestic car, then the part itself must also be domestically made. But that's not required by the stimulus, and in fact the stimulus may even assume the opposite!

The ad wants you to buy Clark parts, because they are apparently made here (not foreign) and they pass this government's tests. It cautions against foreign made parts - parts made elsewhere. But those parts could be for domestic cars, like Chinese manufactured transmissions for Detroit-built Chevys, or German airbags for Teslas made in California. See the issue? A part made for a domestic car could still be a foreign made part, and could still be poorly made.

That should eliminate E for you, leaving D as your only contender, and it's a winner!

[ser219]

Can someone explain why C is wrong?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Ser,

The problem with (C) is that it goes too far. The advertisement doesn't claim or require that no foreign-made parts satisfy our government standards, just that some don't.

Thanks!

[menkenj]

This question really tripped me up. I tried the negation technique on D and E and the both seemed to weaken the argument after negating the answer choice. What is the approach here when two Acs seem to work with the assumption negation technique? Is there something else i should have done? I'm still not entirely sure why E is wrong even after reading the thread above. Please help!

Thanks,
Julie

[Adam Tyson]

The negation of answer E would be "parts made for cars manufactured in our country could be poorly constructed." That actually strengthens the argument, Julie, because the author thinks some foreign-made parts may be poorly constructed. The negation of answer E does nothing to weaken the claims that Clark parts are the only ones to pass those tough tests, and that they are therefore more reliable than others.

But the negation of D is "parts that satisfy those tests ARE as poorly constructed as foreign parts", and if that's the case then there is no reason to prefer Clark parts. The argument completely falls apart.

[sofisofi]

Hi
can you further explain why B is wrong.
Thanks

[Luke Haqq]

Hi sofisofi!

Happy to address why answer choice (B) is incorrect.

This is an assumption question, and we're given the conclusion in the final sentence: "Therefore, be smart and insist on brand-name parts by Clark for your car." How does the author arrive at this conclusion? This is a question it's useful to ask and attempt to pre-phrase an answer for prior to tackling answer choices. Essentially the author is saying that Clark-made parts satisfy government standards, these are the toughest standards in the world, and you never know with foreign parts whether they are reliable or not.

Since it's an assumption question, we're asked to identify an additional, unstated premise on which the argument depends. The Assumption Negation technique is a quick tool for seeing if an answer choice is such a necessary assumption. This involves negating the answer choice, inserting it into the argument, and if the argument falls apart, then it must be the correct answer. Here we can applying this to answer choice (D):

(D) parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts

becomes

(D) parts that satisfy our government standards are [...] as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts

If it were true that parts satisfying the mentioned government standards are just as poorly made as foreign parts, then the argument would fall apart. The author is using their being made domestically as a reason that Clark's parts are superior to foreign parts, and negating answer choice (D) amounts to saying that domestically made parts are just as unreliable as foreign made parts.

Finally, with that foundation let's look at answer choice (B):

(B) foreign-made parts are not suitable for cars manufactured in this country

We can use the Assumption Negation technique again, making this instead read:

(B) foreign-made parts are [...] suitable for cars manufactured in this country

I can understand how this might at first glance seem to make the argument fall apart. If it were true that foreign parts are suitable, maybe it doesn't follow that one should buy Clark's parts. However, answer choice (B) adds in the ambiguous word "suitable." Perhaps they are "suitable" for cars manufactured in the author's country in the sense of "compatible" but still are unreliable overall. Just because they are suitable, doesn't mean that the author's conclusion no longer follows--it still might be better to buy Clark's brand over foreign ones (that are suitable but not reliable). Thus the argument wouldn't fall apart under the Assumption Negation technique, confirming that this can't be an assumption on which the argument depends.

In the end, rather than answer choice (B) denoting an assumption that the argument depends on, it instead actually appears to strengthen the argument. If foreign parts aren't suitable for cars manufactured in the author's country in the first place, then the conclusion follows all the more that one ought to buy parts for cars made in the country like Clark's. So if the question stem had been a strengthen question, (B) might have been right, but since it doesn't identify a necessary assumption it ultimately can't be correct for an assumption question.

[sofisofi]

Thanks that makes a lot more sense!

Hi sofisofi!

Happy to address why answer choice (B) is incorrect.

This is an assumption question, and we're given the conclusion in the final sentence: "Therefore, be smart and insist on brand-name parts by Clark for your car." How does the author arrive at this conclusion? This is a question it's useful to ask and attempt to pre-phrase an answer for prior to tackling answer choices. Essentially the author is saying that Clark-made parts satisfy government standards, these are the toughest standards in the world, and you never know with foreign parts whether they are reliable or not.

Since it's an assumption question, we're asked to identify an additional, unstated premise on which the argument depends. The Assumption Negation technique is a quick tool for seeing if an answer choice is such a necessary assumption. This involves negating the answer choice, inserting it into the argument, and if the argument falls apart, then it must be the correct answer. Here we can applying this to answer choice (D):

(D) parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts

becomes

(D) parts that satisfy our government standards are [...] as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts

If it were true that parts satisfying the mentioned government standards are just as poorly made as foreign parts, then the argument would fall apart. The author is using their being made domestically as a reason that Clark's parts are superior to foreign parts, and negating answer choice (D) amounts to saying that domestically made parts are just as unreliable as foreign made parts.

Finally, with that foundation let's look at answer choice (B):

(B) foreign-made parts are not suitable for cars manufactured in this country

We can use the Assumption Negation technique again, making this instead read:

(B) foreign-made parts are [...] suitable for cars manufactured in this country

I can understand how this might at first glance seem to make the argument fall apart. If it were true that foreign parts are suitable, maybe it doesn't follow that one should buy Clark's parts. However, answer choice (B) adds in the ambiguous word "suitable." Perhaps they are "suitable" for cars manufactured in the author's country in the sense of "compatible" but still are unreliable overall. Just because they are suitable, doesn't mean that the author's conclusion no longer follows--it still might be better to buy Clark's brand over foreign ones (that are suitable but not reliable). Thus the argument wouldn't fall apart under the Assumption Negation technique, confirming that this can't be an assumption on which the argument depends.

In the end, rather than answer choice (B) denoting an assumption that the argument depends on, it instead actually appears to strengthen the argument. If foreign parts aren't suitable for cars manufactured in the author's country in the first place, then the conclusion follows all the more that one ought to buy parts for cars made in the country like Clark's. So if the question stem had been a strengthen question, (B) might have been right, but since it doesn't identify a necessary assumption it ultimately can't be correct for an assumption question.