Critical Reasoning

Consumer advocate: According to Toiko's director of operations, if she is made aware that even one of the company's toys, used properly, has caused an injury, she temporarily stops production until the problem is fixed or permanently stops production of that toy. If that is true, then I assume that the reason Toiko has announced that it will stop production of its line of wooden puzzles for two months is that at least one individual using one of these puzzles properly has sustained an injury.

The flawed reasoning in the consumer advocate's argument is most similar to the reasoning in which of the following choices?

A) Since the law states that every sales contract in this state must include a provision allowing purchasers 3 days in which to cancel a sale or renegotiate the terms of the contract, we can assume that local car dealers such as Auto Rex that do not include this provision in their contracts are not aware of this law.

B) Based on the guarantee that Hi-tone Books includes with all of its publications, if any of the books that the publishing company ships to customers is in any way damaged, Hi-Tone will either replace the book at no cost or, if the customer wishes, give a full refund. If so, then I assume I can be fully refunded for the cost of this Hi-Tone book, which arrived with a torn cover.

C) Frank, who was recently fired, must have made an offer to a client without first discussing this offer with one of his supervisors, since the company handbook clearly states that doing so is a justifiable reason for either suspension or termination of employment.

D) A nationwide plumbing company, Plumb Job, states on its website that if one of its parts either malfunctions or breaks completely within two years of installation, the company will repair the problem at no extra cost. Since Plumb Job recently installed new water heaters for a school at no cost, the company must have done work for the school in the past.

E) According to the rules of a card game, any player with a black card has the option of trading this card for a different card or returning the card to the deck. Since Allyson has a black card, she cannot choose to keep this card.

OA: C veritas
I chose B as I thought it perfectly paralleled the reasoning of the argument. Can an expert please explain how I should have answered this question?

Cheers!

Parallel reasoning questions are a good practice even if you may not see this exact type on question on your test.

You want to state the argument in a way that emphasizes the logic rather than the subject matter. The stimulus indicates that if a certain cause is present (an injury) then a result will occur (production stops). So we can say that this is "if x then y." The argument then concludes by saying that because we see y is true it must have been because of x.

This is reversing the logic. It is like saying that if you go to Business School then you took the GMAT. And reversing it and saying that because you take the GMAT you must have gone to business school. You can see that this is not true. So this is flawed logic that the correct answer must mimic.

Choice C has that same sort of reversal. The handbook says that one reason for being fired is making an offer without discussing it with supervisors. Then it says that since the person is being fired the only reason for that must be that he submitted and offer without discussing it.

Choice B mimics the SUBJECT MATTER and not the logic. The logic says - if any book is damaged it will be replaced or refunded. And since this book is damaged it will be refunded. This is NOT flawed! It does not do what the stimulus does and I would judge that such a person will get the refund...

Does that help??