Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers

Question

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.

The statement that the law should require explicit safety labels on toys serves which one of the following functions in the consumer advocate’s argument?

(A) It is a general principle supporting the conclusion of the argument.

(B) It is a proposed compromise between two conflicting goals.

(C) It is the conclusion of the argument.

(D) It is evidence that must be refuted in order to establish the conclusion of the argument.

(E) It is a particular instance of the general position under discussion.

Bunuel · Answer

Same stem, Strengthen question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/consumer-adv ... 06608.html

TarunTilokani · Answer

I marked C but i couldn't understand option E 
can someone help me with understanding option E

GMATNinja   egmat  @veritaskariskma

auradediligodo · Answer

Identify the conclusion question

To those people who are not familiar with the identification of the conclusion I would suggest the following method.

If your are in doubt between two statements ask yourself: Is  statement 1   because  of  statement 2 ? Or is  statement 2   because  of  statement 1 ?

Applying this reasoning to the case at hand:

Is  "The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers to provide explicit safety labels on toys to indicate what hazards the toys pose."   because of  " 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."  or vice versa?

Clearly statement 1 in this case is because of statement 2 and hence the conclusion.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Consumer advocate: The toy-labeling law should require manufacturers

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards