1000CR - Test B- Q16

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:27 am
Thanked: 4 times

1000CR - Test B- Q16

by Carol » Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:47 am
Some commentators complain that a “litigation explosion” in the past decade has led to unreasonably high costs for U.S. businesses by encouraging more product liability suits against manufacturers. However, these complaints are based mainly on myth. Statistics show that the number of successful product liability suits has remained almost the same, and the average sum awarded in damages has grown no faster than the inflation rate.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) The number of unsuccessful suits has skyrocketed, imposing huge new legal expenses on businesses.
(B) Several of the largest awards ever made in product liability cases occurred within the last two years.
(C) The rise of the consumer movement has encouraged citizens to seek legal redress for product flaws.
(D) Lawyers often undertake product liability cases on a contingency basis, so their payment is based on the size of the damages awarded.
(E) Juries often award damages in product liability suits out of emotional sympathy for an injured consumer.


Could you please post your answers + reasoning. ty :wink:
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

reply

by raunekk » Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:15 am
is it A???

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:27 am
Thanked: 4 times

by Carol » Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:43 am
yes. would you mind to explain your reasoning?

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:47 am

by TrizMA » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:26 am
it's A.

Conclusion: "ligitation explosion" has sky rocketted the cost

Opposing Argument: no of succesful cases & average damages given have almost remained same.

This mean the cost can increase because of legal cost on unsuccesful cases. "A" supports conclusion i.e increase in cost because of litigation

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:00 pm
Thanked: 4 times

Re: 1000CR - Test B- Q16

by nitin86 » Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:31 am
Carol wrote:Some commentators complain that a “litigation explosion” in the past decade has led to unreasonably high costs for U.S. businesses by encouraging more product liability suits against manufacturers. However, these complaints are based mainly on myth. Statistics show that the number of successful product liability suits has remained almost the same, and the average sum awarded in damages has grown no faster than the inflation rate.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?

(A) The number of unsuccessful suits has skyrocketed, imposing huge new legal expenses on businesses.
(B) Several of the largest awards ever made in product liability cases occurred within the last two years.
(C) The rise of the consumer movement has encouraged citizens to seek legal redress for product flaws.
(D) Lawyers often undertake product liability cases on a contingency basis, so their payment is based on the size of the damages awarded.
(E) Juries often award damages in product liability suits out of emotional sympathy for an injured consumer.


Could you please post your answers + reasoning. ty :wink:
Author's assumption -> Unsuccessful suites do no harm to business.

<A> weaken that....

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Wed May 11, 2016 12:34 am
I think A is the right answer here