#15 - One should only buy a frying pan that has a

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi GGIBA003,

I think conditional reasoning works well here if you want to use it. I would caution though that you have a small error with the second contrapositive.

Premise 1: Expect to give money back because doesn't work NO Manufacture Warranty

Should be: Contrapositive: Manufacture Warranty not expect to give money back

Answer choice (A) strengthens the argument by showing that manufacturers expect to have to give money back if their products don't work. So even if you personally wouldn't bother, as long as enough other people would bother, the system works. We are strengthening the link between the warranty and the expectation of paying money.

Hope that helps!

[g_lawyered]

Hi Rachael,
In this question, I realize my conditional reasoning set up didn't help me answer this question. instead, I used process of elimination to eliminate answer B-E. However, in my previous post, I combined conditional statements to form a logic chain. Can you tell me if that chain is correct?
Also, I realize that the main strategy to answer this question is to strengthen the assumption between "rogue term" manufacturer warranty in conclusion and "rogue term" expectation of paying $ back in the premise. My question is, when is it helpful to write out conditional reasoning for answering questions when I see the conditional word indicators? And when is it not? This questions is a perfect example of how spending time on writing out conditional reasoning didn't benefit me and I could've saved time on this question- had I recognized the rogue terms.
Any guidance would help,
Thanks in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Your contrapositive chain is fine, but like I said above, there's an error in the contrapositive of one of the premises. But that didn't impact your overall chain.

I wouldn't personally do this one conditionally. You can draw this one out conditionally, but it doesn't really help you understand the problem with the stimulus. Instead here, I would ask why my behavior would be expected to be different than any one else's. That's because the argument assumes the existence of people that behave in ways "one" wouldn't. That seems questionable, and where I would focus on in my search for a correct answer.

Hope that helps!

[g_lawyered]

Thank you for confirming that Rachael!

[mkarimi73]

Why is (C) through (E) incorrect?

[Paul Popa]

Hi M,

I'd be happy to help explain why C, D, and E are incorrect.

C) This is ultimately irrelevant. Even if this proportional relationship was true, it does nothing to strengthen the author's conclusion that we should only buy frying pans that have a manufacturer's warranty.

D) This answer can be safely rejected because it doesn't even mention a warranty. We're trying to strengthen the idea that we should buy pans with a warranty over ones that don't, so this answer is incorrect.

E) Awesome! If you actually decide to use the warranty. How would this strengthen the conclusion for people who would never actually use the warranty? There needs to be another reason why, and A provides that answer: other people would definitely use the warranty, which in turn makes manufacturers careful to only offer warranties on quality products that will last. Otherwise, they'd be out a lot of money on replacement pans. Hope this helps!

[a.hopp]

I was between A and E; I see now that A is the better answer because if most people would seek a reimbursement if a pan "failed", that strengthens the argument in that companies do not want to lose money reimbursing customers, so the offering of manufacturer's warranty means they are confident in the longevity of their product, especially if most buyers would seek reimbursement.

When I chose E, I was thinking that companies would be particularly confident in their product if providing an option for reimbursement if the customer was not fully satisfied.

Can you expand on why E is incorrect? I know why A is better, but need some help determining exactly what was wrong with this answer.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi A,

You wrote, "When I chose E, I was thinking that companies would be particularly confident in their product if providing an option for reimbursement if the customer was not fully satisfied."

While confidence in their product might be one possible explanation for offering a full satisfaction guarantee, it is not necessarily the only explanation, and you definitely don't want to assume this.

For example, imagine a company makes an inexpensive frying pan (say $5). The company offers a full satisfaction money back guarantee knowing that most people won't bother going through the hassle of returning the pan, filling out the paperwork, calling customer service, etc. for a $5 refund.

On the other hand, the company knows that offering this full satisfaction money back guarantee will significantly increase their sales because many people would assume (like you) that it must be a high quality product. So for the company, offering the money back guarantee would make total sense even if the product is complete garbage.

While Answer E would strengthen an argument for someone who would seek reimbursement (since at least the customer would feel confident in being able to get their money back), it doesn't help out a customer who wouldn't bother seeking reimbursement (as the conclusion states) because it doesn't really show that the product is high quality (as Answer A does).

[Catallus]

Hi! I cannot understand why (B) is wrong. Much of the discussion about (B) seems to center around the "time of purchase" issue. After all, long-term quality matters, especially when we're talking about warranties. However, in my view, the fact that long-term quality is also important doesn't mean that quality at the time of purchase is irrelevant. If (B) is not true—if the warranty-covered pans might actually not work as well to begin with as the uncovered pans—that weakens the argument's conclusion that people should buy warranty-covered pans over uncovered pans, since doing so could leave consumers with a worse pan than they might have had otherwise, at least to begin with.

I suppose my question is how to weigh the competing considerations here: why does purchase-time quality matter so much less than long-term quality? Because ultimately, the author is telling people that they should buy warranty-covered pans rather than uncovered pans, and (B) seems to rule out a reason for discounting that conclusion.

[Adam Tyson]

As I see it, Catallus, answer B is pretty weak stuff when it comes to helping the argument. It's basically saying, "for the moment, the warrantied pans aren't worse than the other ones." Wow, what a glowing endorsement! Don't we want something a little more positive, like that they work better, and that they will continue to be better over time? You're right that the negation of answer B does appear to weaken the argument, although the negation is pretty weak, too. That would be "not all of them work at least as well," or "some of them don't work as well, at first." This may be a good example of why we generally don't use the Negation Technique on Strengthen or Weaken questions; sometimes, negation can help us see what makes an answer good or bad, but sometimes it's less helpful, as here.

Finally, B is not the right answer because, even if it does seem to help the argument a little bit, it doesn't strengthen the argument nearly as much as answer A does. While B is at best saying the pans aren't bad, A is practically guaranteeing that they are good. The manufacturers must be really confident that the pan is not going to fail if they back it with a warranty, knowing that they will have to pay a lot of people back if it does. B doesn't "strongly support" the argument; it barely supports it at all!