Summarize Argument
The author concludes that manufacturers of children’s toys should not overstate the dangers of their toys. This is based on the principle that product-warning labels should overstate dangers only if doing so reduces injuries. But manufacturers of children’s toys overstate their products’ dangers only for the purpose of protecting themselves from lawsuits.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if the purpose of overstating the dangers of children’s toys is to avoid lawsuits, then it cannot have the effect of reducing injuries. This overlooks the possibility that overstating the dangers could reduce injuries, even if the manufacturers’ purpose in overstating is about something else besides reducing injuries.
A
The argument confuses a necessary condition for reducing the number of injuries caused by a product with a sufficient condition.
The argument doesn’t present any necessary condition for reducing injuries. We only get a necessary condition for when product-warning labels should overstate dangers.
B
The argument overlooks the possibility that warnings that do not overstate the dangers that their products pose do not always reduce injuries.
The author concludes that manufacturers should not overstate the dangers. But this conclusion isn’t based on any assumption that not overstating will reduce injuries. So it wouldn’t affect the argument if not overstating dangers doesn’t reduce injuries.
C
The argument relies on a sample that is unlikely to be representative.
The argument isn’t based on a sample. A premise tells us what manufacturers of children’s toys do, and the conclusion concerns what those manufacturers should do.
D
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a warning overstates a danger, then the warning will fail to prevent injuries.
The author assumes that if the PURPOSE of overstating a danger isn’t to reduce injuries, then it can’t reduce injuries. But the author does not assume that every warning that overstates a danger won’t prevent injuries.
E
The argument relies on the unjustified assumption that an action has an effect only if it was performed in order to bring about that effect.
The author assumes that an action (overstating dangers) has an effect (reduces injuries) only if it was performed to bring about that effect. This is why the author thinks the purpose of avoiding lawsuits establishes that the manufacturers’ overstating dangers shouldn’t be done.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that an organism incapable of planned locomotion does not have a central nervous system. This is based on the fact that, in order to be capable of planned locomotion, an organism must have a central nervous system.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a sufficient condition for having a central nervous system (capable of planned locomotion) with a necessary condition. This overlooks the possibility that organisms that can’t do planned locomotion can still have a central nervous system. (Note that this can also be described as confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition.)
A
confuses a necessary condition for an organism’s possessing a capacity with a sufficient one
The confuses a necessary condition (having central nervous system) for an organism’s possessing a capacity (capable of planned locomotion) with a sufficient one. This overlooks the possibility that an animal can have a central nervous system without planned locomotion.
B
takes for granted that organisms capable of sending messages from their central nervous systems to their muscles are also capable of locomotion
There are no assumptions about sending messages “from their central nervous system.” Although the author does assume that organisms with a central nervous system are capable of planned locomotion, that doesn’t imply the author thinks the nervous system sends message to muscles.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that planned locomotion is the only biologically useful purpose for an organism’s forming an internal representation of its environment
The argument doesn’t make assumptions about what is “biologically useful.” The argument is based on a misinterpretation of the fact that a central nervous system is necessary for planned locomotion. What is biologically useful has no part on the reasoning.
D
takes for granted that adaptations that serve a biologically useful purpose originally came about for that purpose
The argument doesn’t make assumptions about what is “biologically useful” or the original purpose of a biologically useful adaptation. The argument is based on a misinterpretation of the fact that a central nervous system is necessary for planned locomotion.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that an internal representation of its environment can be formed by an organism with even a rudimentary nervous system
The argument doesn’t make any assumptions about a “rudimentary nervous system.” We don’t know whether any organism has a rudimentary nervous system. It’s not clear whether a central nervous system is rudimentary or not.
Summary
The author concludes that safety was not important to the buyers who relied on ads and promo materials. This is based on the fact that those buyers did not consult objective sources of vehicle safety info before making their purchases.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that, for certain buyers, safety isn’t important to them. But the premise doesn’t establish what what kind of person does not consider safety important. All the premise establishes is that those buyers didn’t consult objective sources of safety info. Does failure to consult objective sources of safety info guarantee that one does not find safety important? No.
So we want to establish that if one doesn’t consult objective sources of safety info before a purchase, one does not find safety important. Or, in other words, if one finds safety important, one will consult objective sources of safety info before a purchase.
So we want to establish that if one doesn’t consult objective sources of safety info before a purchase, one does not find safety important. Or, in other words, if one finds safety important, one will consult objective sources of safety info before a purchase.
A
Someone who claims that safety was an important factor in a buying decision does not necessarily mean that safety was the most important factor.
The argument doesn’t concern what was the “most” important. We’re trying to establish that certain buyers did not find safety to be important at all.
B
Advertisements and promotional materials sometimes provide incomplete vehicle safety information.
(B) doesn’t establish what people who rely on ads and promo materials find important. The conclusion concerns something inside the buyers’ mind — do they consider safety important or not? An answer that merely describes what’s in ads and promo materials does not establish what the buyers value or think to be important.
C
Recent car buyers do not necessarily tell the truth when asked about the factors that contributed to their vehicle purchases.
(C) doesn’t establish that the buyers who rely on ads and promo materials don’t find safety important. Although some recent car buyers don’t necessarily tell the truth about purchase factors, that doesn’t guarantee that the people who rely on ads and promos are the ones who aren’t telling the truth, nor does it guarantee that the thing they aren’t telling the truth about is whether safety is important to them.
D
Most consumers are aware that advertisements and promotional materials are not objective sources of vehicle safety information.
Even if most consumers know that ads and promos aren’t objective, that doesn’t imply that the people who do rely on ads and promos have such awareness. Maybe they are part of the minority who don’t know that these materials aren’t objective. In any case, even if they were aware the materials aren’t objective, that wouldn’t guarantee that they don’t find safety important.
E
Anyone to whom safety is an important factor in purchasing a car will consult an objective source of vehicle safety information before buying.
We know from a premise that people who rely on ads/promos didn’t consult objective sources before buying. So, according to (E), they can’t be among the people who find safety an important factor. If they were among those people, then they would have consulted an objective source.