Dear honchos,

I'm happy to help with this.

First of all, here's a blog article on this question type:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-logic ... -argument/

There's not really a quick-fix strategy for these, other than critical thinking and careful reading. One thing that helps is paying attention to all the "logic" words of the argument: "therefore", "since", "because", "although", etc.

Here' the last, incomplete sentence of that argument:
But this change is unlikely to result in a significant reduction in the number of fires caused by children playing with lighters, because children given the opportunity can figure out how to work the safety levers and ………..
I've highlighted the "logic" words. The initial "but" indicates a sharp contrast with the previous sentence, and this is consistent with content. First sentence --- manufacturers try to solve a problem by introducing safety levers --- then contrast --- BUT, this doesn't solve the problem.

Then we get the "because", and then reason #1, and then the word "and", which indicates we need another, parallel reason --- that is to say, another reason why introducing safety levers to lighters will NOT solve the problem of children playing with them & starting fires. Which answer choice could be another reason why introducing the safety levers will not solve the problem of kids playing with fire & burning houses down?
(A) economic, irrelevant
(B) this could be an additional reason, that would work well with reason #1
(C) has nothing to do with the introduction of safety levers
(D) the opposite of what we want, something that makes the lighters with safety levers more safe
(E) data from before safety levers were introduced, irrelevant

Pay attention to logic words always in GMAT CR. These subtle "signposts" make all the different in the flow of the argument, and in "complete the argument" CR questions, they are absolutely crucial for identifying precisely what you need in the blank.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

This is not a 700 level question, considering the fact that it is the first one of the 13th OG

Only B is related to the argument and provide a logical conclusion

Parents leave the new lighter in places that are fewer safe than the previous lighter version because they are assured that children do not touch them, but instead children do
_________________

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