Consumer advocate: According to Toiko’s director of operatio

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Answer: C

Explanation: The conclusion is that since Toiko stopped production of wooden puzzles for two months, someone got hurt using the puzzles properly. The evidence is that Toiko has a policy of stopping production of a toy – either temporarily or permanently – if someone was injured using the toy properly. However, it is possible that Toiko stopped puzzle production temporarily for a reason other than someone being injured. (Perhaps they wanted to improve the product, or use cheaper materials. . . ). In other words just because A causes B (or C), doesn’t mean that B was caused by A. This is the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. The injury is sufficient: it will definitely stop puzzle production; however, the injury is not necessary to stop production – other things can stop production. We can say that a stop in production is necessary: if there is an injury, then production stops. Be careful not to confuse necessity and sufficiency. The statement “If A then B” means that A is sufficient to cause B, and B is necessary when A exists (happens). The statement cannot be flipped to say B causes A. {In the explanation, you may want to say something about how the argument tries to flip sufficient and necessary conditions. This is the terminology Veritas uses, and it would help reinforce the principle.} Using the terms of this argument: just because someone getting hurt by using a toy would cause Toiko to temporarily stop production (or permanently stop it) doesn’t mean that a temporary stop was caused by someone getting hurt. Choice C parallels this logic. Just because someone making an offer without discussing the offer with a supervisor would cause this person to be fired (or suspended) does not mean that the firing of an employee was caused by someone making an unsupervised offer. Frank could have been fired for other reasons.

(A) This choice is flawed, though for different reasons. Auto Rex may actually know of this law, but has chosen to disobey it. Unlike the stimulus, there is no causation (A causes B) in this choice.

(B) This choice appears to mirror the reasoning in the stimulus except that it is NOT flawed. We are told that a damaged book “causes” a replacement or refund. Since this book IS damaged, it is logical to say that the price of the book can be refunded.

(D) This choice might appear to parallel the reasoning in the stimulus, and it is indeed flawed. However, the flaw is different. We are told that a malfunction or break will “cause” a no-cost fix. This is like saying that A or B causes C, which is different from the stimulus, which says that A causes B or C. We are then told that the company must have done work for the school because the company is doing work for free, but we are not told that this is repair work, just an installation.

(E) This choice is flawed, but not in the same manner as the stimulus. We are told that someone with a black card can trade the card or return it to the deck. We are not told that these are the only options for someone with a black card. Therefore, it is possible that Allyson, who has a black card, can keep it.