Q6 - A company that imports and sells

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle-Strengthen (interestingly, strengthen a DECISION, not an 'argument/reasoning')

Stimulus Breakdown:
Decision: These figurines will be classified as collectibles, not as toys.
Basis: These figurines are marketed as collector's items, not toys.

Answer Anticipation:
Okay, so there DID end up being an argument structure to that decision. It looks like we need to bridge the gap from "marketed as collector's item, not as toy" to "should be classified as a collectible, not as toy".

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This seems good. Since it's not marketed as a toy, it shouldn't be classified as a toy for tariff purposes. Since it's marketed as a collectible, and the way it's classified is primarily based on how it's marketed, then we assume it should be classified as a collectible.

(B) This is a principle about what the company should seek. We're trying to justify what the government agency decided. This principle doesn't apply to them.

(C) This gives a rule, "If it's typically used as a toy, then it shouldn't be classified as a collectible." The government's decision is that "it SHOULD be classified as a collectible". This rule can't help us, because it only has the power to prove something SHOULDN'T be called a collectible. That's enough to eliminate, but if you want to think deeper: does this rule apply to the collectible figurines? Were we told that they are typically used as a toy? Nope. We were only told that they amuse people, as toys do.

(D) Do we know if these collectibles "are developed primarily to provide amusement"? Nope. We were only told that they amuse customers, as toys do. We could stop reading there and eliminate, but the second half of this is also broken. It's a principle that would help to decide whether or not something should get lower tariffs. The decision we're trying to justify needs a principle that would help to decide whether or not something should be classified as a toy or collectible.

(E) No, this is a principle for the company, not for the government agency.

Takeaway/Pattern: Like on most Principle-Strengthen questions, if you stay ruthlessly aware of the conclusion language you're trying to prove, you'll find that most of the answers aren't principles that would help you decide on the conclusion's language. Here, we were only interested in principles that helped you to decide how to classify whether something was a collectible or a toy. Only (A) and (C) had anything to do with a rule for how to classify something.

#officialexplanation

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a principle question in which we are to justify the government agency's decision (so we want little to do with the company).

Figurines are marketed as collector's items rather than toys
→
Govt. agency rejected company's request to have its collectibles classified as "toy"'s

The big gap here is that, just because something is marketed as "X" doesn't mean that it should actually be classified as "X." We want to find something that repeats this.

(A) does this, very simply.

(B) the first clue that this is suspicious is that it gives us a prescriptive statement involving "should." What somebody or something "should" do is not up for debate, it is what the collectibles with be officially classified as. Ina edition, this doesn't tell us anything about the govt. agency. Was it justified in its actions?

(C) this would actually invalidate the govt.'s conclusion. This is saying that IF something is typically used as a toy ("the figurines amuse customers, just as toys do"), then it should NOT be classified as a collectible. This would work if we were trying to justify the company's viewpoint.

(D) We don't know anything about what these objects were "developed primarily" to do, first of all. In addition, if make this perhaps unwarranted assumption, this would still go against the govt. agency's decision.

(E) This is just like (B); eliminate.

[MattS781]

Question Type:
Principle-Strengthen (interestingly, strengthen a DECISION, not an 'argument/reasoning')

Stimulus Breakdown:
Decision: These figurines will be classified as collectibles, not as toys.
Basis: These figurines are marketed as collector's items, not toys.

Answer Anticipation:
Okay, so there DID end up being an argument structure to that decision. It looks like we need to bridge the gap from "marketed as collector's item, not a toy" to "should be classified as a collectible, not a toy".

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This seems good. Since it's not marketed as a toy, it shouldn't be classified as a toy for tariff purposes.

(B) Similar to (A), the conclusion is a match, but the evidence doesn't sound like "at a certain point, you don't get enough benefit for it to be worth it". It sounds like "It will MESS .. YOU … UP."

(C) This is closer than the first two, but saying "it's no longer worth it, if there are only a few left" doesn't seem like a strong match for "it's no longer worth it, because for the few left, the pain/effort of getting them is not worth the reward." Ultimately, though, this is the closest answer we get. At least it still captured the "don't go for 100%, because towards the end it's just not worth it." that was in the original.

(D) Also close, but again the reason doesn't seem like a great match. The original author didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE to remove all weeds, just not worth it in the end.

(E) No, this doesn't even get the conclusion right.

Takeaway/Pattern: Only (E) gave us a conclusion shortcut. For the other four, we had to really figure out which one was the closest available match for the idea of "diminishing returns", or "avoiding the effort more than compensates for losing the benefit", i.e. "not worth it".

#officialexplanation

Hey Patrick, you might want to edit this one. The correct answer choice is A not C. Plus, you have the explanation for C on question 8 instead of this one. It seriously confused the hell out of me for a minute.

[ohthatpatrick]

Thank you for bringing that to our attention!