CR: In order to reduce the number of items (Truesave)

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

I do not understand the answer (C) to the following CR:

TrueSave is a mail-order company that ships electronic products from its warehouses to customers worldwide. The company’s shipping manager is proposing that customer orders be packed with newer, more expensive packing materials that virtually eliminate damage during shipping. The manager argues that overall costs would essentially remain unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged condition.
Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in determining whether implementing the shipping manager’s proposal would have the argued-for effect on costs?
A. Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring
damage during shipping than are typical electronic products
B. Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are
most other products shipped by mail-order companies
C. Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage
already present when those items were packed for shipping
D. Whether there are cases in which customers blame themselves for product
damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until
later
E. Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping
companies it uses to ship products to its customers

[ayushrastogi82]

I do not understand the answer (C) to the following CR:

TrueSave is a mail-order company that ships electronic products from its warehouses to customers worldwide. The company’s shipping manager is proposing that customer orders be packed with newer, more expensive packing materials that virtually eliminate damage during shipping. The manager argues that overall costs would essentially remain unaffected, since the extra cost of the new packing materials roughly equals the current cost of replacing products returned by customers because they arrived in damaged condition.
Which of the following would it be most important to ascertain in determining whether implementing the shipping manager’s proposal would have the argued-for effect on costs?
A. Whether the products shipped by TrueSave are more vulnerable to incurring
damage during shipping than are typical electronic products
B. Whether electronic products are damaged more frequently in transit than are
most other products shipped by mail-order companies
C. Whether a sizable proportion of returned items are returned because of damage
already present when those items were packed for shipping
D. Whether there are cases in which customers blame themselves for product
damage that, though present on arrival of the product, is not discovered until
later
E. Whether TrueSave continually monitors the performance of the shipping
companies it uses to ship products to its customers

C is correct.
We have to evaluate whether the proposal of the manager would be beneficial.
His proposal is based on the assumption that many products got damaged during the transit and therefore using the better quality packing material we can avoid that damage.

We basically need to evaluate this assumption. Now C questions that assumption in a fancier way. If a sizable proportion of returned items were damanged not during transit but before packing itself, then new better quality packing can not do anything to avoid this damage, hence manager's assumption fall apart.

Hope you get the idea!!

[RonPurewal]

well done.

takeaway:
if a problem asks "which of the following would be important to know / ascertain / etc.", then this is usually equivalent to "find the assumption".

this is the case because the "things that we have to ascertain" usually have to do with whether the situation will satisfy our assumptions.

this is no different:
the manager states that the added cost of the new fancy packing materials will make up for no more damage claims.
the assumption is that IF we use the advanced packaging, then there WILL BE no more damage claims.

the post above mine explains the rest quite well.

[lamesis2106]

why E is wrong ?

[gauravbhatt01]

why E is wrong ?

You have to find an option which evaluates the packaging since the manager wants to include better packaging material. Option E discusses shipping companies. You might be thinking that the damage might be caused during shipping. Maybe ur right. But then you have to learn to find the right answers with the information given only. And the stem nowhere talks about 3rd parties.
Hope this helps

[lamesis2106]

why E is wrong ?

You have to find an option which evaluates the packaging since the manager wants to include better packaging material. Option E discusses shipping companies. You might be thinking that the damage might be caused during shipping. Maybe ur right. But then you have to learn to find the right answers with the information given only. And the stem nowhere talks about 3rd parties.
Hope this helps

Thanks for your help :)

[tim]

:)

[mcmebk]

well done.

takeaway:
if a problem asks "which of the following would be important to know / ascertain / etc.", then this is usually equivalent to "find the assumption".

this is the case because the "things that we have to ascertain" usually have to do with whether the situation will satisfy our assumptions.

this is no different:
the manager states that the added cost of the new fancy packing materials will make up for no more damage claims.
the assumption is that IF we use the advanced packaging, then there WILL BE no more damage claims.

the post above mine explains the rest quite well.

What about D?

If customer does blame themselves for damages in the product, then there is no fee to be occurred to replace the product, thus using more expensive packaging material will be a loss in profit.

[RonPurewal]

if the customers "blame themselves", then the common-sense conclusion is that they won't return the products in the first place. therefore, those cases don't even factor into the situation (which deals only with returned products).

[CrystalSpringston]

well done.

takeaway:
if a problem asks "which of the following would be important to know / ascertain / etc.", then this is usually equivalent to "find the assumption".

this is the case because the "things that we have to ascertain" usually have to do with whether the situation will satisfy our assumptions.

this is no different:
the manager states that the added cost of the new fancy packing materials will make up for no more damage claims.
the assumption is that IF we use the advanced packaging, then there WILL BE no more damage claims.

the post above mine explains the rest quite well.

Hi Ron,
Can such type of questions be equivalent to evulation?
Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in evaluating the argument?

I feel they are the same thing.

[RonPurewal]

yep.

when you use 'negation' on assumption questions, you are essentially turning them into 'weaken' questions.

there is one difference:
when you negate an assumption, you're not just trying to weaken the argument. rather, you're trying to destroy / disprove / invalidate it.

apart from that difference, though, the general type of reasoning is similar.