CR- test 4 v24

[erkin.kudratov]

Hello,
today Ive met very complicated question. Can you help me?

Country X imposes heavy tariffs on imported manufactured goods. Company Y has determined that it could increase its profits in the long term by opening a factory in Country X to manufacture the goods that it currently produces in its home country for sale in Country X.

For Company Y's determination to be true, which of the following assumptions must also be true?
a) Company Y will be able to obtain all the necessary permits to open a factory in Country X.
b) Company Y currently produces no goods outside its home country.
c) A sustainable market for Company Y's goods currently exists in Country X.
d) Company Y's home country does not impose tariffs on imported goods.
e) Labor costs in Country X are lower than those in Company Y's home country.

The OA is C, but
A sustainable market in Contry X, for this product, is not requared right now (currently) for a long term (strategic) profit attractiveness.
If contry X market have potential, a good growth rate, and will be sustainable in some years (in 5 for example, which is mid-term), it would also be attractive for such investments. Thus, in my oppition C is not 100% requared.

Please challenge my opinion.

[zchampz]

what if we apply the least negation rule to A - i.e Company Y may not able to obtain all the necessary permits to open a factory in Country X.

I think A is also valid assumption - with out obtaining all the necessary permits to open a factory in Country X, Comapany Y can not increase its profits..

Why not the answer can be A?

[tim]

We are definitely going to want to apply the negation rule because we are asked for an assumption that is necessary. Negating A - assuming hey cannot get the required permits - negates only the hypothetical portion of the conclusion and not the conclusion itself. If it proves impossible to get the permits, that doesn't change the fact that opening a factory would increase profits. I'm sure this is what the question writers had in mind. However, I will say that this is a close call because of the wording of the question (including use of the word "current" in answer choice C). The bottom line is that you have applied sound reasoning to this problem, which is the real goal of questions like this rather than knowing whether you got it right. :)

[sachin.w]

Hi,
but if you negate C
c) A sustainable market for Company Y's goods does not currently exist in Country X.

in that case, it doesnt break the conclusion.

currently it doesnt exist , but it may exist in future and then profits would increase..

so this isn't the best assumption I would say or the wording isn't proper..

but yeah this is certainly the best answer out of the 5 given.

Regards,
Sach

[tim]

of course negating C ruins the conclusion. if there is currently no market, then there is NO REASON to conclude there ever will be one and thus the conclusion doesn't follow. please understand that destroying a conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion has to be IMPOSSIBLE, only that it doesn't follow from the information given..

[sachin.w]

Hi Tim,

please understand that destroying a conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion has to be IMPOSSIBLE, only that it doesn't follow from the information given..

I don't quite understand this.

If assumption is the foundation on which conclusion rests, if foundation falls.. conclusion has to be destroyed. Is my understanding right?
Regards,
Sach

[tim]

"destroyed" doesn't mean impossible, just that it is no longer a valid conclusion. consider:

I live in Texas.
Therefore I have an Italian accent.

It is certainly not valid to conclude that I have an Italian accent just because I live in Texas, but living in Texas does not make it impossible to have an Italian accent..

[sachin.w]

Thanks Tim

of course negating C ruins the conclusion. if there is currently no market, then there is NO REASON to conclude there ever will be one and thus the conclusion doesn't follow.

but
if there is currently no market, then there is NO REASON to conclude there never will be one and thus the conclusion might follow

So both possibilities exist because information is not given about the future.

How do we deal with this kind of a situation?

Regards,
Sach

[tim]

yes, it MIGHT happen, which means it is not impossible, but it also is not an inevitable consequence..

[sachin.w]

yes, it MIGHT happen, which means it is not impossible, but it also is not an inevitable consequence..

Ok. So since both possibilities exist, conclusion is not valid and negation should check the validity of conclusion and not if its destroying the conclusion.
Hope I am getting it right.


Btw, that was your 3000th post :)

Regards,
Sach

[tim]

thanks for noticing that landmark! i think you see what i'm saying now, and that's good. there's something about this issue that strikes me as a little odd though, and you have definitely brought up some good points that are worth considering. i'll keep this thread at the top of my list and give it some more thought after i've slept on it..

[sachin.w]

thanks for noticing that landmark! i think you see what i'm saying now, and that's good. there's something about this issue that strikes me as a little odd though, and you have definitely brought up some good points that are worth considering. i'll keep this thread at the top of my list and give it some more thought after i've slept on it..

Well! Let me make this issue a bit more complicated!
Had there been 2 choices like below :

c) A sustainable market for Company Y's goods currently exists in Country X.
d) A sustainable market for Company Y's goods exists in Country X.

Answer would have been D for sure, cause that breaks/destroys the conclusion whereas C makes it less likely!!

What say?
Good night!! We will continue this discussion your tomorrow!!

[tim]

i'd say that if you buy into D, you should be happy with C because they say the EXACT same thing! think about it: it's like saying "i plan to move to Florida someday" versus "RIGHT NOW i plan to move to Florida someday". sustainability looks to the future, and the future is all we're concerned with here, regardless of which specific day we identify a sustainable market..

my concern with some of my earlier posts was that i'm used to seeing assumptions questions where negating the correct answer renders the conclusion impossible, which of course gave me pause when i wrote that the conclusion doesn't have to be impossible. i looked this up in the strategy guide, and it says "Negating the correct answer should actually weaken the author's conclusion" (p.102). i will say that in most cases i've seen, negating the correct answer renders the conclusion impossible, but if you can't find this in the answer choices, at least look for the one that most weakens the conclusion (i.e. renders it most unlikely)..

[sachin.w]

my concern with some of my earlier posts was that i'm used to seeing assumptions questions where negating the correct answer renders the conclusion impossible, which of course gave me pause when i wrote that the conclusion doesn't have to be impossible. i looked this up in the strategy guide, and it says "Negating the correct answer should actually weaken the author's conclusion" (p.102). i will say that in most cases i've seen, negating the correct answer renders the conclusion impossible, but if you can't find this in the answer choices, at least look for the one that most weakens the conclusion (i.e. renders it most unlikely).

Thanks a ton for this.. ! This had already found a place in my takeaway notes..

[tim]

i'm glad i was able to help. and thanks for your patience as we worked through this one..