Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

PT 70, Section 2, Question 6

badgalriribadgalriri Alum Member
On this question I narrowed it down to C and D. But even though I've read a couple explanations on it, I don't see why D is glaringly wrong. I feel like C isn't fair enough because it has words like "chance" and "try to identify" which means that either way, some people will probably be left out and it still won't be fair. But in D, if everyone gets denied the rebate, then no one gets it, which means no one has an unfair opportunity.

I just couldn't find a helpful explanation because everyone just rules D off as "obviously unfair," and I guess I'm feeling kind of blind right now!!!!


  • c.janson35c.janson35 Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    2398 karma
    So, the company has an obligation to rectify any unfair situation that may have resulted from SOME of the coupons having an incorrect expiration date. This means that some people may have received coupons with a correct expiration date, and it would be unfair for the company to take away their coupons because of the company's own mistake. Instead what we are trying to fix is any unfairness that resulted from some people not taking advantage of the coupons because they believed them to be expired already. So, "if there's a chance any customers did not take adv of the rebate because of the exp date," the company has an obligation to fix this unfairness, which means they "have an obligation to identify these customers and offer them the rebate."

    Hope this helps!
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum
    1749 karma
    Hi there @badgalriri . To address your concern over (D) I can only point out that given the stimulus we do not know what kind of time frame we are talking about. With that in mind it is entirely possible that customers who received the rebate already have long since spent the money they got back and there is no way the company could demand the money back (let’s say two years later). That is probably illegal and certainly impractical. So the company would have to do something different than that suggestion. (D) is out for sure. (C) maps out pretty well. “If there is a chance that any customers did not apply for the rebate because of an incorrect exp date on their coupon” –this is exactly the illustrated problem- Then we are supposed to apply the principal “Anyone who creates such a problem is now obligated to *rectify*…” And in (C) the company would rectify by identifying and offering the jilted parties the rebate. Your concern over the word “chance” I believe is unwarranted because based on what occurred –misprinted dates- there is in fact that chance. As far as the word “try” you may have something there, except, the question stem calls for “most helps to justify” so we are not tasked with validity. (C) is pretty darn close. I mean what if one person left the country…Is the company obligated to send PIs to Europe and hunt them down to give them back their rebate option?
Sign In or Register to comment.