PT105.S1.Q8 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The economist concludes that consumers are obligated to report product defects while producers are never obligated to reveal them. This is because both producers and consumers are obligated to act in their own interests, and spreading information about defects is in consumers’ interest.

In order to conclude that producers are never obligated to reveal defects, it must be true that revealing defects is never in the producers’ interest. However, the economist never establishes whether this is in their interest or not. If revealing defects is in the producers’ interest, then they’re obligated to reveal them, so the economist must assume that this isn’t the case.

The argument depends on the assumption that revealing product defects is not in the producers’ interest.

This must be true in order for the conclusion to follow. If (A) weren’t true—if revealing product defects were sometimes in the producers’ interest—then producers would sometimes be obligated to reveal them.

People’s expectations are irrelevant because the economist only makes a claim about the obligations of consumers and producers. In claiming that producers are never obligated to reveal defects, the economist assumes that doing so is never in their interest.

The economist only makes claims about what producers and consumers are obligated to do, not about what’s likely to occur. The likelihood of a defect being found has no bearing on what one’s obligation would be if a defect was found.

It doesn’t matter who’s more likely to discover a defect since the conclusion is only about what they’re obligated to do if one is found.

The economist must assume that revealing defects is not in the producers’ interest in this situation, but doesn’t have to assume that their interests don’t overlap with consumers in other situations.

PrepTest 105 - Section 1 - Question 8

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action