Question is asking to strengthen the argument. Assumption can also strengthen the argument. I don't think that B is correct, situation in B may be because of the customer overheating the oil. However, the same oven might be certified as completely safe.

harshavardhanc wrote:came across this question during practice.

I chose B, which is one of the incorrect answers per OE.

My doubt :

Don't you think that C is in fact a necessary assumption and B is a strengthener?

Without C, the conclusion of advocates won't hold much water.

Any help by anyone would be highly appreciated!

P1: mainly because microwave ovens offer a fast and convenient way of cooking and reheating food. Indeed, it has become a standard appliance in most households.

P2: Studies have shown, however, that microwave ovens are not completely safe and their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury.

Conclusion: Because of this, some consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be so readily accepted as a standard appliance until they can be certified to be completely safe.

P1 states that, the microwave has become a standard appliance.
P2 states that, microwaves are not completely safe.
Conclusion, argues that standard appliances need to be completely safe

B cites an accident, this in no way strengthens the argument; C however, does just that, by making the connection between "Standard Equipments" & how only a safe equipment should be termed as "Standard"

I hope this helps.

vivek1110 wrote:
B cites an accident, this in no way strengthens the argument; C however, does just that, by making the connection between "Standard Equipments" & how only a safe equipment should be termed as "Standard"

I think you didn't get the point which I was trying to make. Ok.

Imagine : " All the appliances having a name that starts with the letter "M" are standard equipment"

If I add it in the stimulus, can advocates now argue?

Nopes! Because, they think that in order to term an appliance as standard, absolute safety is must. Therefore, C is not a strengthener but a NECESSARY assumption. Seeing it in logic terms :

If P is a premise , Q is a necessary assumption and R is a conclusion, we can represent the situation as :

P * Q = R

P, Q and R can take the values of 1 or 0, where 1 represents true and 0 represents false.

The only condition where R ( the conclusion) is true or has the value 1 , is when each P and Q each are true or 1.

in other words, 1 * 1 = 1.

If Q (assumption) is not true, R will be 0. You call it "the conclusion falls apart" .



Whereas, a strengther can be just another piece of info, which when added to the argument makes it more clear. It need not be mandatory for the argument.

Hope you are getting what I want to say!

harshavardhanc wrote:came across this question during practice.

I chose B, which is one of the incorrect answers per OE.

My doubt :

Don't you think that C is in fact a necessary assumption and B is a strengthener?

Without C, the conclusion of advocates won't hold much water.

Any help by anyone would be highly appreciated!

Harsh,

I can understand why you think B might strengthen the argument; citing an example of many accidents, does to an extent, strengthen an argument that microwaves are dangerous, agreed. The argument, advocated by the consumer, is not that the microwaves are dangerous, but that microwaves should not be considered "standard equipment" because it is unsafe.

The fact that microwaves are unsafe has already been established, and hence B cannot strengthen this argument anymore.

My point is, if the argument were to contend that Microwaves are dangerous, then B would work.

It's crucial you understand what the argument is about - It's not the safety of the microwave but the lack of it, which contributes to the argument against terming it as "standard equipment".

vivek1110 wrote:Whereas, a strengther can be just another piece of info, which when added to the argument makes it more clear. It need not be mandatory for the argument.

Hope you are getting what I want to say!

yes, let's look at the conclusion again:
consumer advocates argue that microwave ovens should not be accepted as standard appliances, because they aren't completely safe.

premise: microwaves aren't completely safe
conclusion: consumer advocates argue microwave ovens shouldn't be accepted as standard appliances

i.e. CONCLUSION - complete safety is a must for microwaves ovens to be deemed as a standard appliance.

let's turn this conclusion into a yes/no question that asks:
IS COMPLETE SAFETY A MUST FOR MICROWAVE OVENS TO BE DEEMED AS A STD APPLIANCE?
we need to find an answer that makes the conclusion MORE LIKELY, but not necessarily 100% true! a choice that answers:
YES will STRENGTHEN, and
NO will WEAKEN

(B) says there have been reports of injuries from using microwave ovens. does this answer our above question with either a YES or a NO? this is just repeating information from the premise that microwave ovens are not completely safe and that their use has occasionally resulted in serious injury. all it says is that microwave oven is not completely safe, because of x, y, z, etc. that happened.

(C) says absolute safety is the only criterion by which an appliance should be judged as a standard. this tells us that safety is MUST, MANDATORY for appliances to be termed standard. it gives us a general rule for an appliance to be deemed as standard. apply this to our conclusion, and the answer is YES.

@turbo jet's 'assumption negation technique' just happens to work in this specific case, but is better not practiced for strengtheners, because they, though relevant, tend to be out of scope in some sense. and using negation techniques to such choices can be dangerous.