Manufacturers are now required to make all cigarette lighters child-re

It is a long time I do not do simil.ar reasoning for a question. Maybe because my mind goes in auto mode :D

Thanks Mike, Bunuel, You and Karishma(From Veritas) has made Gmatclub.com into heaven for Gmat preparation. It is always encouraging when you guys immediately respond to personal requests, actually i was able to get to the correct answer, but your explanation has helped me to visualize the problem with a different perspective.

This question is asking for an additional reason why the safety levers are unlikely to result in a reduction of the fires caused by children. The argument already provides one reason - that the children can figure out the safety levers so now we need to make it more likely that they will be able to start fires. Answer choice B says that not only will they be able to work the lighters but also will have access to the lighters - therefore the safety levers will make little difference in the number of fires.
Answer A only talks about expense which does not relate to the likelihood of fires
Answer C does not address stopping children from starting fires, only that the fires can be quickly extinguished
Answer D actually goes opposite of the argument, showing that there could be a reduction because children under 2 could not start fires.
Answer E only tells us the number of fires, does not discuss whether children will be able to start the fires.

Type - explain the situation / paradox
Pre- thinking - even with new safety levers , if the newer lighters are more accessible to children then the number of fires would not decrease

Answer B- adults are more likely to leave child-resistant lighters than non-child-resistant lighters in places that are accessible to children

Argument Construction

Situation Manufacturers must equip all cigarette lighters with child-resistant safety levers, but children can figure out how to circumvent the safety levers and thereby often start fires.

Reasoning What point would most logically complete the argument? What would make it likely that the number of fires caused by children playing with lighters would remain the same?

In order for children to start fires using lighters equipped with safety levers, they must be given the opportunity to figure out how the safety levers work and then to use
them. They must, that is, have access to the lighters.

A If safety-lever-equipped lighters are more expensive than lighters that are not so equipped, fewer lighters might be sold. This would most likely afford children less access to lighters, thus giving them less opportunity to start fires with them.

B Correct. This statement properly identifies a point that logically completes the argument: it explains why children are likely to have access to lighters equipped with safety levers.

C The speed with which fires are extinguished does not have any bearing on the number of fires that are started.

D This provides a reason to believe that the number of fires started by children will most likely decrease, rather than stay the same: fewer children will be able to operate the lighters, and thus fewer fires are likely to be started.

E This information about how many fires were started by children before safety levers were required does not have any bearing on the question of how many fires are likely to be started by children now that the safety levers are required.

The correct answer is B.

The correct answer - option B

Understanding the argument
- Requirement: Manufacturers have to make cigarette lighters child resistant, by the use of safety levers
- Conclusion: this change is not likely to reduce in a significant reduction in fires caused by children playing with lighters
- Because - children, given the opportunity can figure out how to work the safety levers
- and ___________________


Prethinking
What we are looking for here is a STRENGTHENER - a new, additional piece of premise information that supports the conclusion made.

Strengthener question: What new information will make us believe more in the conclusion that this change is not likely to reduce in a significant reduction in fires caused by children playing with lighters?

The passage says that children given the opportunity can learn how to work the safety levers. What if thanks to the presence of safety levers, the parents get more complacent and present more opportunities to their children to figure out use of safety levers? Think about the situation where because a parent believes that her/his child will not be able to crack the safety lever, he/she starts carelessly leaving it in places where the children can access it (or in other words more opportunities). In such a case, it will increase our belief in the conclusion.

Strengthener: Any statement that indicates parents are more likely to leave these child resistant lighters in areas where children can get access to them


Option choice analysis
(A) the addition of the safety levers has made lighters more expensive than they were before the requirement was instituted
Cost - irrelevant to the argument here

(B) adults are more likely to leave child-resistant lighters than non-child-resistant lighters in places that are accessible to children
Correct - as per prethinking. This statement increases belief in the conclusion.

(C) many of the fires started by young children are quickly detected and extinguished by their parents
Irrelevant to the conclusion. 1) We are concerned with how many fires were started, not how quickly they were detected and put out. 2) Also, In option C, we do not even know if we are talking about fires caused by children using cigarette lighters.

(D) unlike child-resistant lighters, lighters that are not child-resistant can be operated by children as young as two years old
This tells us that child resistant lighters cannot be operated by children <=2 years, whereas regular lighters can be operated. If anything, this will increase our belief that the child resistant lighters will reduce the number of fires (at least those caused by children <=2 years). Which makes it a weakener rather than a strengthener for the conclusion.

(E) approximately 5,000 fires per year have been attributed to children playing with lighters before the safety levers were required
This number does not matter. A statement that shows that this number has reduced to say, 3000 would be interesting. But as it stands, option E has no impact on the argument.


Hope this helps!

Regards,
Harsha

Dear mikemcgarry, anairamitch1804, and egmat,

I agree to the point that Option B is the best among the 5 choices available. My doubt is regarding Option A.
It states that the lighters with the safety lever are more expensive than they were before the requirement was instituted. (lighters with no safety lever)

Can one infer from the above statements that people will not be able to afford it and since they won't be able to afford it, the lighters they will be having will be the same older ones (the ones without the safety lever). Now, given that the lighters the people own are the ones without the safety lever despite the availability of the lighters with the safety lever, there is a possibility of concluding that this "change" will not result in the decrease in the number of fire incidents caused by children playing with the lighters. So this kind of reasoning also somewhat strengthens the author's conclusion.

Please let me know if this kind of reasoning is right or am I completely out of track.

Looking forward to learn more from you!!

Best Regards,
Sau

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.