Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 12:48

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require

Author Message
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 639
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 331 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 07:31
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (02:20) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 4 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose. The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended. For instance, a “three and up” label is required on toys that pose a choking hazard for children under three years of age. Although the current toy-labeling law has indeed reduced the incidence of injuries to children from toys, parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the consumer advocate’s argument?
(A) Certain types of toys have never been associated with injury to children.
(B) Most parents believe that the current labels are recommendations regarding level of cognitive skill.
(C) The majority of children injured by toys are under three years of age.
(D) Many parents do not pay attention to manufacturers’ labels when they select toys for their children.
(E) Choking is the most serious hazard presented to children by toys.

b
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 635
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 07:47
Will go for 'C'
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1444
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 284 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: Toy labeling law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 07:55
eyunni wrote:
Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose. The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended. For instance, a “three and up” label is required on toys that pose a choking hazard for children under three years of age. Although the current toy-labeling law has indeed reduced the incidence of injuries to children from toys, parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the consumer advocate’s argument?
(A) Certain types of toys have never been associated with injury to children.
(B) Most parents believe that the current labels are recommendations regarding level of cognitive skill.
(C) The majority of children injured by toys are under three years of age.
(D) Many parents do not pay attention to manufacturers’ labels when they select toys for their children.
(E) Choking is the most serious hazard presented to children by toys.

b

I got B
My own answer was: the accidents not only happen within the age range specified, but this wasn't one of the answer.
Ig B is true, then explicit label can make parents be more aware; thus, prevent more injuries.
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2562
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: Toy labeling law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 10:27
eyunni wrote:
Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose. The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended. For instance, a “three and up” label is required on toys that pose a choking hazard for children under three years of age. Although the current toy-labeling law has indeed reduced the incidence of injuries to children from toys, parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the consumer advocate’s argument?
(A) Certain types of toys have never been associated with injury to children.
(B) Most parents believe that the current labels are recommendations regarding level of cognitive skill.
(C) The majority of children injured by toys are under three years of age.
(D) Many parents do not pay attention to manufacturers’ labels when they select toys for their children.
(E) Choking is the most serious hazard presented to children by toys.

b

Im stuck btwn B and E.

We want to strengthen the conclusion that these labels would help prevent injuries in children from toys.

A: This is irrelevant.
C: To me this suggests that the current labels do the job.
D: This weakens the conclusion.

E and B. I think E is not as good of a choice as B, b/c E doesn't really tell us much. E says that choking is a serious hazard. But this doesn't say whether the current labels already do the job. It does somewhat strengthen the argument, but suggesting that the labels would help parents realize that chocking is a serious hazard. Still I think its weak.

B: Since most parents don't really know what current labels are for, new labels explicitly stating what the hazards of the toy are, then parents will not be confused, but well aware! This strengthens the argument.

I say B.
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: Toy labeling law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 10:45
eyunni wrote:
Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose. The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended. For instance, a “three and up” label is required on toys that pose a choking hazard for children under three years of age. Although the current toy-labeling law has indeed reduced the incidence of injuries to children from toys, parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the consumer advocate’s argument?
(A) Certain types of toys have never been associated with injury to children.
(B) Most parents believe that the current labels are recommendations regarding level of cognitive skill.
(C) The majority of children injured by toys are under three years of age.
(D) Many parents do not pay attention to manufacturers’ labels when they select toys for their children.
(E) Choking is the most serious hazard presented to children by toys.

b

Sub-Conclusion - The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose.

Main Conclusion - Parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information

Premise - The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended

Assumption - Labels indicating only the age range for who a toy is intended for does not inform parents of the safety hazards. They believe this information is telling them something else.

Answer - B Most parents believe that the current labels are recommendations regarding level of cognitive skill.

This answer confirms what is indicated to parents when they are given only the age range that the toy is intended for.
Director
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 908
Schools: Kellogg '10
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 94 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 13:46
What's the OA. This one is hard.
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 921
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 14:01
hhheehehe i got answer B. a bit tricky, whats the OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 364
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: Toy labeling law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 14:15
eyunni wrote:
Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose. The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended. For instance, a “three and up” label is required on toys that pose a choking hazard for children under three years of age. Although the current toy-labeling law has indeed reduced the incidence of injuries to children from toys, parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the consumer advocate’s argument?
(A) Certain types of toys have never been associated with injury to children.
(B) Most parents believe that the current labels are recommendations regarding level of cognitive skill.
(C) The majority of children injured by toys are under three years of age.
(D) Many parents do not pay attention to manufacturers’ labels when they select toys for their children.
(E) Choking is the most serious hazard presented to children by toys.

b

B --looks the most tempting. I would go with B
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 639
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 331 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 14:50
OA is B
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2562
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 15:16
beckee529 wrote:
hhheehehe i got answer B. a bit tricky, whats the OA?

lol wuts so funny? ;p
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 921
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 15:20
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
beckee529 wrote:
hhheehehe i got answer B. a bit tricky, whats the OA?

lol wuts so funny? ;p

just that bkk145 and i were discussing how we seem to choose the same verbal answers now if only bkk145's 51 math level skills translated to my GMAT math potential =P
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1444
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 284 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2007, 16:41
beckee529 wrote:
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
beckee529 wrote:
hhheehehe i got answer B. a bit tricky, whats the OA?

lol wuts so funny? ;p

just that bkk145 and i were discussing how we seem to choose the same verbal answers now if only bkk145's 51 math level skills translated to my GMAT math potential =P

Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 521
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: Toy labeling law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2007, 19:52
bkk145 wrote:
eyunni wrote:
Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose. The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended. For instance, a “three and up” label is required on toys that pose a choking hazard for children under three years of age. Although the current toy-labeling law has indeed reduced the incidence of injuries to children from toys, parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the consumer advocate’s argument?
(A) Certain types of toys have never been associated with injury to children.
(B) Most parents believe that the current labels are recommendations regarding level of cognitive skill.
(C) The majority of children injured by toys are under three years of age.
(D) Many parents do not pay attention to manufacturers’ labels when they select toys for their children.
(E) Choking is the most serious hazard presented to children by toys.

b

I got B
My own answer was: the accidents not only happen within the age range specified, but this wasn't one of the answer.
Ig B is true, then explicit label can make parents be more aware; thus, prevent more injuries.

Another vote for B. Currently parents think that the labels signify the skills required to play the toy and not their safety implications. Hence it becomes more important to explicitly put safety labels to remove any confusions that customers might have..
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 117
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Re: CR 1000: Toy labeling law [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2007, 23:25
eyunni wrote:
Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose. The only labels currently required by law are labels indicating the age range for which a toy is intended. For instance, a “three and up” label is required on toys that pose a choking hazard for children under three years of age. Although the current toy-labeling law has indeed reduced the incidence of injuries to children from toys, parents could prevent such injuries almost entirely if toy labels provided explicit safety information.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the consumer advocate’s argument?
(A) Certain types of toys have never been associated with injury to children.
(B) Most parents believe that the current labels are recommendations regarding level of cognitive skill.
(C) The majority of children injured by toys are under three years of age.
(D) Many parents do not pay attention to manufacturers’ labels when they select toys for their children.
(E) Choking is the most serious hazard presented to children by toys.

b

Definitely B.

This question is a bit tricky unless you isolate the argument. Which is that a change in labeling from age to dangers is good.

A. Irrelevant because we're talking about toys with known danger
B. Shows that the current labeling method is ineffective and needs to be changed [Strengthen]
C. Irrelevant because it doesn't strengthen the argument
D. Irrelevant because parents do not pay attention will not be affected by the change anyway.
E. Tempting, but too narrow of a scope. Choking as a hazard doesn't support the hypothesis, but instead diverges the topic away from labeling.
Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 158
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2007, 15:29
"b"
11 Oct 2007, 15:29
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 2 26 Oct 2010, 04:21
11 Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, 1 08 Aug 2010, 10:12
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 2 24 Jul 2008, 12:08
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 7 11 Mar 2008, 02:19
Consumer Advocate: The new soft drink, Mango Paradise, 7 16 Nov 2007, 21:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by