Self-study
Advertisement: Support Clark brand-name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country. ████ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███████████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ████████████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████
One Lens On The Gap: Absolute vs. Relative Claims
The premises in this stimulus are all absolute claims (Clark parts have this feature; foreign parts have that feature), while the conclusion is relative (Clark parts are better than foreign parts). The argument essentially presents two independent pros and cons lists and concludes one option is better than the other:
Clark Parts
- Made for cars in this country.
- Satisfy all government tests (the toughest).
Foreign-Made Parts
- Some are good and some are poorly constructed.
- You never know which ones are which.
Conclusion: Clark parts are better than foreign-made parts.
This is a useful lens, but it’s not mandatory. (You can also think of this argument in weighing factors terms, for example.) Really what you need to bring with you from the stimulus into the answer choices is a firm understanding of every claim and a willingness to test the answers against those claims.
9.
The argument requires the assumption ████
a
Clark parts are █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████
(A) negated: What if you can also buy Clark parts in other countries?
That’s fine – that fact has no bearing on whether Clark parts in this country are better or worse than foreign-made parts sold in this country.
b
foreign-made parts are ███ ████████ ███ ████ ████████████ ██ ████ ███████
(B) negated: What if foreign-made parts are suitable for cars manufactured in this country?
(B) mostly dies because suitable is a weak word. Note that it’s an absolute term as well, so it doesn’t threaten the relative status of Clark parts vs. foreign-made ones.
Foreign parts can be suitable for domestic cars without being the best choice. Clark parts might be the better of two suitable options.
c
no foreign-made parts ███████ ███ ██████████ █████████
(C) negated: What if some foreign-made parts do satisfy our government standards?
The stimulus actively makes room for this negated claim to be true. The advertisement’s point isn’t that no foreign-made parts are good – some certainly are good – the point is that you never know which ones are good and which are bad.
So if you’re imagining a scenario where a certain foreign-made brand – call it Schmark – meets government standards, you have to bake in the premise that buyers don’t know enough about foreign-made brands to insist on Schmark over Clark.
d
parts that satisfy ███ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██ █████ ████████████ █████
(D) negated: What if parts that satisfy our government standards are as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts?
This bridges the gap between the two pros and cons lists, generating a direct comparison between Clark parts and foreign-made ones.
Clark parts satisfy government standards, so in negated-(D)’s world they’re just as poorly constructed as the worst kind of foreign-made parts.
This ruins the idea that Clark parts are better than foreign-made ones. At least foreign-made parts are a mixed bag with some reliable parts in there.
e
if parts are ████ ███ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████████
(E) negated: What if some parts made for cars in this country are poorly constructed?
(E) really hinges on negating the conditional claim correctly. Properly negated, it doesn’t threaten the argument at all because the poorly constructed parts made for cars in this country can just come from companies other than Clark.
Like yeah, tons of crappy companies make parts designed for use in this country that are awful. Not us here at Clark, though.