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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

The stimulus points out that even though toy labels currently indicate appropriate age-levels for children, the labels could be more effective if the labels provided explicit safety information, so the toy-labeling law should require explicit labels.

The question asks what function is served by the statement that the law should require explicit safety labels on toys. This statement, which is made at the beginning of the stimulus, represents the main conclusion of the argument.

Answer choice (A) This choice refers to a premise, but the initial sentence was the conclusion.

Answer choice (B) There were no conflicting goals discussed, so this response is wrong.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The first sentence is supported by the rest of the stimulus, so the first sentence is the conclusion.

Answer choice (D) Since the first sentence is the conclusion, this response is wrong.

Answer choice (E) The first sentence provides a very general conclusion that is supported elsewhere in the stimulus by a specific instance. This choice refers to the incorrect portion of the stimulus.

[wilsonc]

Could you outline the structure of the argument? I'm confused about the function of the last sentence. Thank you!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi wilsonc,

Thanks for the question! Happy to help.

First sentence: Conclusion

Second sentence: Premise

Third sentence: Premise

Final sentence: Sub-conclusion (so, this allows us to reach the ultimate conclusion from the first sentence); answer choice A actually comes closer to describing this sentence

Hope this helps!

[mankariousc]

Hello!

I have been having difficulty on these questions identifying the difference between the main conclusion and the sub-conclusion. In the readings, it had mentioned that often the sub-conclusion is at the end and the main conclusion is at the beginning (like in this question), but that hasn't always held true. Do you have any advice on how to differentiate the two?

Thanks!

[Francis O'Rourke]

My go-to method for differentiating between the sub-conclusions and main conclusions is to mentally lay out each statement, and add a conclusion word, such as "thus" before one of them, then add the same word before the other statement. Ask yourself which addition makes more sense, and you've found the main conclusion.

Here's what I mean. First identify the two statements you are trying to characterize:

1. The law should require manufacturers to explicitly label dangers
2. Parents could prevent toy injuries almost entirely if there are explicit safety information.

Now make up two possible arrangements:

1. The law should require manufacturers to explicitly label dangers. Thus parents could prevent toy injuries almost entirely if there are explicit safety information
2. Parents could prevent toy injuries almost entirely if there are explicit safety information. Thus the law should require manufacturers to explicitly label dangers.

Which of these two arrangements makes more sense as the final, main conclusion?