The correct answer -
option BUnderstanding 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 ___________________
PrethinkingWhat 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 childrenCorrect - 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
_________________