DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Btw, can we say that this is another point as Pre-thinking -- whether U.S. manufacturers will have the capacity/infrastructure to maintain significant production levels to meet the increased demand in the domestic market ? (I sense, it's MAY NOT be correct in this scenario, but just want to get this confirmed!)

Sure, something that's worth considering. But because domestic capacity seems adequate to meet foreign demand, the bigger issue is whether an increase in domestic demand will offset the decrease in exports. (Remember, the argument is that production will remain robust. In order to remain at its current level, presumably it wouldn't need increased capacity. If a manufacturer produces 100 widgets for country X, it should be able to produce 100 widgets for country Y, should X shift to another supplier.)

Yes,exactly! That's why I was skeptical to consider it as a potential point for Pre-thinking...

So, why do you think it's "worth considering" in this scenario ?

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

2. The one I've mentioned - Country doesn't really have strong DOMESTIC demand,so it exports most of its PRODUCT. (Perhaps, they manufacture that PRODUCT in such a large scale with EXPORT in mind - isn't this logical ?)

Perfectly logical.

Alright. Then the point I made earlier as the REASON to ELIMINATE Option E, should be correct,I guess!

Here it's precisely : Option E is wrong because E doesn't provide any NEW information - it ALREADY appears from the ARGUMENT that the current market for solar-power generators in the United States is very limited BECAUSE the ARGUMENT says that most of the US-manufactured solar-power generators are exported to Europe. (this INTERPRETATION is one of the possible scenarios when a country exports MOST of its products, as discussed in this above quote)

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Mitch/Marty/Dave/Ceilidh,

Could you please let me know whether I'm correct as follows:

Option E is wrong because it doesn't provide any NEW information - it ALREADY appears from the ARGUMENT (at least, within the scope of the ARGUMENT) that the current market for solar-power generators in the United States is very limited BECAUSE the ARGUMENT says that most of the US-manufactured solar-power generators are exported to Europe and United States government is funding initiatives intended to encourage use of solar power within the United States .

And a STRENGTHENER should be a NEW information that will make the CONCLUSION more believable.

Correct me please if wrong!

The conclusion is based on the condition that these initiatives succeed in increasing the demand for solar-power generators in the United States.
Thus, the size of the CURRENT market is irrelevant.
The question is what will happen AFTER there has been an INCREASE IN DEMAND.
Eliminate E.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

2. The one I've mentioned - Country doesn't really have strong DOMESTIC demand,so it exports most of its PRODUCT. (Perhaps, they manufacture that PRODUCT in such a large scale with EXPORT in mind - isn't this logical ?)

Perfectly logical.

Alright. Then the point I made earlier as the REASON to ELIMINATE Option E, should be correct,I guess!

Here it's precisely : Option E is wrong because E doesn't provide any NEW information - it ALREADY appears from the ARGUMENT that the current market for solar-power generators in the United States is very limited BECAUSE the ARGUMENT says that most of the US-manufactured solar-power generators are exported to Europe. (this INTERPRETATION is one of the possible scenarios when a country exports MOST of its products, as discussed in this above quote)

I see what you're saying. It's not totally unreasonable to think "well, if we could have inferred this anyway, it can't possibly be a strengthener." The reason that this is potentially dangerous is you might mistakenly believe something could have been inferred. Put another way, if we're debating between two reasons to eliminate E: 1) We could have inferred this anyway (debatable) or 2) It has no impact on the conclusion (ironclad,) the second is the more persuasive. Ultimately, you're not going to see this question again, so if we're trying to come away with a generally applicable approach here, it's this: the most important thing to consider when evaluating an answer choice in a strengthen/weaken question is whether it directly impacts the conclusion in the way it's supposed to. If an answer choice has no bearing on the conclusion, it's definitely wrong.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Btw, can we say that this is another point as Pre-thinking -- whether U.S. manufacturers will have the capacity/infrastructure to maintain significant production levels to meet the increased demand in the domestic market ? (I sense, it's MAY NOT be correct in this scenario, but just want to get this confirmed!)

Sure, something that's worth considering. But because domestic capacity seems adequate to meet foreign demand, the bigger issue is whether an increase in domestic demand will offset the decrease in exports. (Remember, the argument is that production will remain robust. In order to remain at its current level, presumably it wouldn't need increased capacity. If a manufacturer produces 100 widgets for country X, it should be able to produce 100 widgets for country Y, should X shift to another supplier.)

Yes,exactly! That's why I was skeptical to consider it as a potential point for Pre-thinking...

So, why do you think it's "worth considering" in this scenario ?

I could have been more precise with my language here. By "worth considering" I meant something more akin to "a reasonable thought, but one we'll ultimately dismiss upon deeper analysis." (Felt like a mouthful

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Btw, can we say that this is another point as Pre-thinking -- whether U.S. manufacturers will have the capacity/infrastructure to maintain significant production levels to meet the increased demand in the domestic market ? (I sense, it's MAY NOT be correct in this scenario, but just want to get this confirmed!)

Sure, something that's worth considering. But because domestic capacity seems adequate to meet foreign demand, the bigger issue is whether an increase in domestic demand will offset the decrease in exports. (Remember, the argument is that production will remain robust. In order to remain at its current level, presumably it wouldn't need increased capacity. If a manufacturer produces 100 widgets for country X, it should be able to produce 100 widgets for country Y, should X shift to another supplier.)

Yes,exactly! That's why I was skeptical to consider it as a potential point for Pre-thinking...

So, why do you think it's "worth considering" in this scenario ?

I could have been more precise with my language here. By "worth considering" I meant something more akin to "a reasonable thought, but one we'll ultimately dismiss upon deeper analysis." (Felt like a mouthful

Much thanks Dave! Glad to know that I was correct (ironclad ) in this case...