sanchitb23 wrote:
There is no Official Explanation for this Question, Kindly help with one as no proper explanation for this Question is provided
The author first provides us with a fact: "That gadget I bought for the kitchen last week has already broken."
Then, he/she connects it to a general trend: "It’s just another example of the shoddy products that we are seeing more and more of these days."
Finally, the author throws out a claim: "The thing was probably manufactured in East Golo."
Notice that there's really
no support provided for that final claim. Why the heck does the author think that this thing came from East Golo? That's what we're trying to find in the answer choices -- an unstated premise that underlies the author’s reasoning.
Quote:
(A) If a manufacturer uses shoddy materials to make a gadget, the gadget is likely to break quickly.
(A) specifies that shoddy materials are the main issue. But the author doesn't care about what, exactly, made the product break -- it could be materials, or poor assembly, or anything else. Singling out shoddy materials doesn't help us connect the dots and understand why the author thinks that the gadget comes from East Golo.
Eliminate (A).
Quote:
(B) If a gadget breaks quickly, it was probably manufactured in East Golo.
This provides exactly the support that we need! The author relies on an unstated idea that the gadget is likely from East Golo because it broke quickly. (B) connects the dots from the fact at the beginning to the claim at the end.
Keep (B).
Quote:
(C) If a kitchen gadget was manufactured in East Golo, it should not be sold in this country.
The author doesn't make any statements about what
should happen -- he/she only makes a claim of what probably DID happen. So, (C) isn't a premise that underlies the author's argument.
Get rid of (C).
Quote:
(D) If everything that is manufactured in East Golo breaks quickly, then kitchen gadgets manufactured in East Golo are likely to break quickly.
This doesn't quite connect the dots in the argument. The author has a broken gadget, and we're trying to understand why he/she believes it comes from East Golo.
(D) gives us a hypothetical about East Golo -- what if everything from there breaks quickly? Then the kitchen gadgets from there would break quickly. The issue is that we have no evidence that everything that is manufactured in East Golo breaks quickly, so we have no idea if the bit about the kitchen gadgets follows.
(D) is out.
Quote:
(E) Nothing that is manufactured in East Golo can be expected to last more than a week
(E) flips the logic of the passage. Saying that gadgets that DO break are probably from East Golo is different than saying that EVERYTHING from East Golo breaks.
Imagine this scenario: 100 things are manufactured in East Golo, and 5 of them break within a week. 100 things are manufactured elsewhere, and none of them break within a week.
In this scenario, you can claim that something that breaks is probably from East Golo, even if not
everything from East Golo breaks. After all, 95 things from East Golo didn't break!
That's why (E) is not a premise underlying the author's argument, and (B) is the correct answer.