#16 - Principle: Employees of telemarketing agencies should

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion—PR. The correct answer choice is (C)

This relatively unusual stimulus contains two parts: the first part outlines a principle; the second
describes its application. Both parts employ somewhat convoluted language, which makes the
stimulus rather difficult to follow. Simplification is therefore key:

• Principle: Telemarketers should never act in a way that makes people dislike their clients
  (i.e. the companies whose products telemarketers are hired to sell).
  
  Application: Telemarketers should never harass unwilling customers into buying products
  they do not want.

Since the question stem requires us to justify the application of the principle, the correct answer
choice will add a piece of information to the principle showing that its application is logically valid.
Structurally, the “principle” part of the stimulus functions as a premise, while its “application” – as
the conclusion. The sufficient condition indicator (“if”) in the question stem is a reminder that you
must select an answer that is sufficient to prove the application of the principle by using the Justify
Formula:

• Principle + Answer choice = Application

There is a logical gap between the principle and its application. Clearly, they both warn telemarketers
against behaving in a certain way. We need to ensure that the type of behavior prohibited in
the “application” part of the stimulus leads to the type of undesirable outcome stipulated in the
“principle.” In other words, our job is to prove that harassing people into buying unwanted products
makes these people dislike the telemarketer’s clients. This prephrase is key, and immediately reveals
that answer choice (C) is correct.

Answer choice (A): The application of the principle takes for granted that telemarketers can reliably
determine what types of actions are likely to engender animosity toward the client. While this answer
choice may be an assumption upon which the application depends, it is certainly not sufficient to
justify it. Indeed, even if telemarketers could tell when harassing unwilling customers engendered
animosity toward the client, that would not prove that customer harassment has a similar effect, nor
does it justify the outright prohibition against harassment. The application of the principle amounts
to a definitive prohibition; it does not invite a case-by-case approach.

Answer choice (B): If some telemarketers were unable to tell when their actions engender animosity
towards the client, such telemarketers would have a difficult time complying with the principle
outlined in the stimulus. This answer choice does not justify the application of the principle and is
therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The principle cautions telemarketers never
to predispose people to dislike the agencies’ clients. So, if harassing customers into buying unwanted
products is sure to do that (“any employee…will engender”), then it makes sense to prohibit such
behavior on the part of telemarketers. When combined with the principle outlined in the stimulus,
this answer choice logically proves its application.

Note that the definitive language of this answer choice is reasonable given the absolute nature of
the prohibition in both the principle and its application. Furthermore, the correct answer choice in a
typical Justify question often does contain extreme language, as the very nature of the question stem
requires a statement strong enough to prove the conclusion (or, in this case, the application).

Answer choice (D): This is the Opposite answer. If being harassed by telemarketers does not always
engender animosity toward the telemarketers’ clients, then there would be little reason to prohibit
such behavior. This answer choice undermines the application of the principle and is therefore
incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice might “make sense” in the real world, but this is not good
enough reason to select it. Indeed, people often refuse to buy certain products if they are already
predisposed to dislike the companies that make them. While continuing to harass such customers is
likely to be ineffective, this – by itself – does not justify the application of the principle. In a way,
it obviates the need to comply with it. After all, if those who refuse to buy the advertised products
tend to dislike the agencies’ clients, telemarketers would have little reason to worry that their actions
would engender animosity toward the client (chances, are such animosity already exists among the
customers who refuse to buy the product).

[avengingangel]

Wow, surprise no one has asked about this question yet!

So, I got this one correct as well, but would still like to walk through my reasoning here, because I didn't really like that answer (or any of them, for that matter). Mainly, I thought that C was just the mistaken reversal of the application. My prephrase was something like dislike of agency's clients talking a person into buying something they don't want from the client. Can you tell me what I did wrong here ?

[David Boyle]

Wow, surprise no one has asked about this question yet!

So, I got this one correct as well, but would still like to walk through my reasoning here, because I didn't really like that answer (or any of them, for that matter). Mainly, I thought that C was just the mistaken reversal of the application. My prephrase was something like dislike of agency's clients talking a person into buying something they don't want from the client. Can you tell me what I did wrong here ?

Hello,

If it were a mistaken reversal, how could it be the right answer? ...Anyway, your prephrase, "dislike of agency's clients talking a person into buying something they don't want from the client", is not wholly off the mark, but maybe it would be better reversed, "talking a person into buying something they don't want from the client dislike of agency's clients". That's because the "talking" part is in the application, and you want that part to imply (point an arrow to) the "dislike" part in the "principle" section.

David

[avengingangel]

Thank you!

[lathlee]

actually, this is the part that giving me massieve trouble (similar to av-angel), since Principle + Answer choice = Application, the correct answer form, the sufficient condition is the Principle and the necessary part is the Application ?

In the answer choice, the sufficient condition is the application and the necessary condition is the principle? since sufficient condition is the part that must be connected to necessary condition ?

[Adam Tyson]

The principle PLUS the answer choice would together be a sufficient condition in this case, and they would make the application necessary. You need to find the answer choice that, when added to the principle, makes the conclusion necessary. The answer is not a sufficient condition or a necessary condition by itself, but is a conditional claim that, when combined with the conditional principle, makes the conclusion necessary.

Sometimes it helps to paraphrase and simplify, maybe by focusing on the structure of the argument instead of getting caught up in the details. In simple terms, this argument is:

1. Principle: You shouldn't do X

2. Answer choice C: Y requires X

3. Conclusion: You shouldn't do Y

X represents doing things that cause people to dislike your clients; Y represents trying to talk people into buying things after they have said they don't want those things.

Again, answer C is not a condition that is either sufficient or necessary. It is a complete conditional claim in itself that, in combination with another claim, are together sufficient for the conclusion.

[cornflakes]

Hi,

Could you provide a fuller explanation of why A might work as a necessary assumption answer choice? In the explanation it stated that "while this could works as a necessary assumption.." -

Would employees' inability to determine whether harassing will or will not cause animosity render the principle and application less likely to be executed correctly? Does its execution depend on the idea that the employees consciously realize if the harassing will lead to animosity?

Thanks

[Jeremy Press]

Hi cornflakes,

I tend to agree with you that, since the application is a blanket prohibition with no room for discretion, it doesn't actually need to assume the employee can figure out how a person would react to being "sold to." All the employee has to determine is when the person has told them they don't want to buy the product (as long as they can figure that out, they can apply the rule). But what the explanation has exactly right is that, even if the application were assuming that the employee can determine the person's reaction, it would still not Justify the kind of blanket prohibition the application wants the employee to follow. Because the employee might realize, with certain people, that they're easy going folks and they're not going to dislike the client. So the employee might then think they could try to talk that person into buying the product. But that would violate the application, which is a blanket prohibition on trying to talk anyone who said they didn't want it into buying the product. Not good! So what that means is answer choice A cannot, standing on its own, definitively guide the employee to the outcome the application wants (don't try to sell!). That's the more important takeaway on this question and on answer choice A.

I hope this helps!