(HELP) PT2.S4.Q9 - Clark brand name parts

hruan

Premise 1: Clark brand name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country.

Premise 2: they satisfy all the government's automotive tests.

Premise 3: for foreign made parts, you never know which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable.

Conclusion: you should prefer Clark brand name parts to foreign made parts.

The question is asking for the necessary assumption of the stimulus. I picked the right answer. But, upon second look, I think even the right answer, strictly speaking, seems to be wrong....

Answer C, the supposedly right answer, states that "parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as the cheap foreign-made parts".

It doesn't seem to me the negation of this answer choice necessarily undermines the original argument. For I read the premise 3 of the stimulus as only implying that, in contrast to foreign made parts, you COULD KNOW which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable in the case of Clark brand name parts, which means Clark brand name parts could contain cheap and unreliable parts just as foreign made ones do. The only difference is you can tell the difference in the case of former, but not the latter. For answer C to be the necessary assumption of the original argument, however, we need to read that premise 3 as implying that Clark brand name parts are INDEED NOT cheap look-alike and reliable, which seems to me a bit too strong an inference to be made.

Furthermore, nothing in the stimulus implies that cheap and unreliable foreign-made parts cannot satisfy the government automotive standards.

Can someone help point out if I miss anything? Am I reading too much into the stimulus?

JesseWeNeedToCook

Alright yeah, this question is a bit of a tough one.

So the negation does wreck the argument, but it is a bit convoluted.

Essentially what is implied by answer choice C (when negated) is that if some of those foreign made parts did pass the goverment standards, then well we would be able to know which parts were reliable and therefore why would we buy only clark parts.

There is a particular emphasis on the fact that we never know with the foreign parts whether we are getting something reliable or not. However, if some of the foreign parts are passing the goverment standards, well then we do know parts that are foreign and also reliable, so we could just buy those parts.

I think the disconnect is that it is not a "could know" in premise three, it is a "never know" and then the negated version of answer choice C, is a way in which you "do know".

JesseWeNeedToCook

I guess think of this hypothetical situation to help clarify

I could buy the a clark part that has passed goverment standards, so I know it will work

Alternatively I could buy one of three foreign part options presented to me listed as: A, B, or C

Necessary assumption: Currently none of these have passed the goverment standards so I can't really determine which are reliable and which are cheaply made.

Therefore to be safe I should just be safe/smart and just buy the clark part.

Now lets look at the alternative in which the necessary asumption is negated:

I could buy a clark part that has passed goverment standards, so I know it will work

Alternatively I could buy three foreign part options presented to me listed as: A,B, or C

Negated Necessary assumption: Currently only C has passed the goverment standards as well.

Therefore I could buy C or a clark part while still being safe/smart.

hruan

There is a particular emphasis on the fact that we never know with the foreign parts whether we are getting something reliable or not. However, if some of the foreign parts are passing the goverment standards, well then we do know parts that are foreign and also reliable, so we could just buy those parts.

Thank you for the very detailed analysis.

But it seems to me that, in making this interpretation, you're assuming that the "knowability" in question strictly hinges on whether the parts pass the government's automotive test, that passing the test is a confirmation of our belief into the knowledge that the part indeed is reliable and not cheap-constructed. But the problem with this interpretation is that it fails to consider the possibility that an unreliable and cheap can also likewise pass the test, so the test itself is not a sufficient criterion of determining whether the part is reliable or cheaply constructed or not.

JesseWeNeedToCook

Ignore Everything I said above, I read answer choice C in the initial post and skipped ahead to trying to justify it. For me the answer choice appears as D for some reason and not C.

"For I read the premise 3 of the stimulus as only implying that, in contrast to foreign made parts, you COULD KNOW which one might be cheap look-alike and reliable in the case of Clark brand name parts, which means Clark brand name parts could contain cheap and unreliable parts just as foreign made ones do. The only difference is you can tell the difference in the case of former, but not the latter. "

This intreptation of premise 3 seems incorrect, nowhere is the contrast being made that you "could know" which clark parts are cheap and which are reliable, (assuming cheap clark parts even existed). All we know is that with foreign parts we are unable to tell which are reliable and which are cheap. That does not all the sudden imply we could know which clark parts are reliable (outside of knowing that they all passed a goverment standard).

If we negate the correct answer choice, then it would seem that some clark parts might be produced as poorly as cheap parts, all might be produced as poorly as cheap parts, or all might be reliable. It adds in same layer of uncertainty that plagues the foreign parts.

"Furthermore, nothing in the stimulus implies that cheap and unreliable foreign-made parts cannot satisfy the government automotive standards"

That' exactly why the correct answer choice needs to be assumed in order to block that possibility and allow the argument to be coherent.