Thyrian Lawmaker

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

Thyrian Lawmaker

by komal » Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:29 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Thyrian lawmaker: Thyria's Cheese Importation Board inspects all cheese shipments to Thyria and rejects
shipments not meeting specified standards. Yet only 1 percent is ever rejected. Therefore, since the health
consequences and associated economic costs of not rejecting that 1 percent are negligible, whereas the
board's operating costs are considerable, for economic reasons alone the board should be disbanded.
Consultant: I disagree. The threat of having their shipments rejected deters many cheese exporters from
shipping substandard product.

The consultant responds to the lawmaker's argument by

(A) rejecting the lawmaker's argument while proposing that the standards according to which the board
inspects imported cheese should be raised

(B) providing evidence that the lawmaker's argument has significantly overestimated the cost of maintaining
the board

(C) objecting to the lawmaker's introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic

(D) pointing out a benefit of maintaining the board, which'the lawmaker's argument has failed to consider

(E) shifting the discussion from the argument at hand to an attack on the integrity of the cheese inspectors

OA D

User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:59 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Notice the term- 'I disagree'. this disagreement is against the conclusion that the board must be disbanded.
Premise: The threat of having their shipments rejected deters many cheese exporters from
shipping substandard product.
so you see the consultant is disagreeing to the conclusion of the lawmaker by showing the advantage the board elicits due to its presence.

Lets look at options now.

(A) rejecting the lawmaker's argument while proposing that the standards according to which the board
inspects imported cheese should be raised [the consultant does not give any further advice. he just shows the advantage of the existence of a board. Eliminated!]

(B) providing evidence that the lawmaker's argument has significantly overestimated the cost of maintaining
the board
[consultant does not attack the cost of maintaining the board at all. Eliminated!]

(C) objecting to the lawmaker's introducing into the discussion factors that are not strictly economic [neither the lawmaker nor the consultant introduce any other external unrelated factor. Eliminated!]

(D) pointing out a benefit of maintaining the board, which'the lawmaker's argument has failed to consider [Correct!this perfectly sits in with our reasoning.]

(E) shifting the discussion from the argument at hand to an attack on the integrity of the cheese inspectors [consultant talks only about the board and not on the integrity of any person. Eliminated!]

Hope this helps!