Q21 - Claim: Country X's government

[yama_sekander]

i had trouble understanding the question and also, the correct answer... can someone break this down for me??? thanks

[demetri.blaisdell]

This is a very unusual problem with a complicated question stem. We have two sides here: the claim is correct or the claim is incorrect. We want to prove that the claim is incorrect. We will do that by using the principle. But, to make life more difficult, we have to find a premise that will allow us to use the principle. Since the premise will relate to the claim, we can think of this as a weaken question. The argument we are weakening is:

Lowering tariffs benefited companies ---> Tariff was lowered in order to benefit companies

The gap here is: what if it was just a happy accident for the companies? How do we know that the intent of lowering the tariffs was to benefit the companies?

The principle that will help us weaken this argument is: In order to prove the change was caused by the group that benefitted, you have to show how it happened. Sounds reasonable. Now we need to find a premise that connects the principle to the claim. (E) explicitly tells us that while companies benefitted from the change, there is no other evidence that they were involved. This violates our principle (you have to show how they caused it!), so it is now invalid to claim that they caused the change in tariffs. We successfully destroyed the argument.

(A) is out of scope. We aren't concerned with who benefitted more. We are focused on the powerful companies. Consumers are out of scope.

(B) attacks the premise that foreign companies benefitted from the change. But we already know it served the interests of foreign companies. Telling me about whether they profited doesn't change the argument. We need something that will relate to the principle (show me how they caused it)!

(C) is out of scope. We don't care how it will impact the economy. We care how it will impact the powerful foreign companies.

(D) is out of scope. I don't care how much they compete. How did they influence the decision?

The toughest thing about this question was the stem. The answer choices weren't too tricky. Please let me know if this explanation makes sense or if you still have questions.

Demetri

[asafezrati]

I think I was too strict here.

".. show how the interests .. played a role."
When I read E It seemed to me that these interests can play a role, even if the companies didn't get involved directly.

In my country a common methodology used by officials is being extremely in favor of certain groups' (certain rich families), without immediately being linked to them, and after that official has finished his public service he would be hired by these certain parties (with great terms of employment).

So here the abovementioned interests did play a role, and the change wasn't induced by the groups.

Where is my mistake? Am I going way too far?

[csta5315]

HI, could someone break down the question stem a bit more and explain why this is a weaken question? Thank you !

[sweetsecret]

HI, could someone break down the question stem a bit more and explain why this is a weaken question? Thank you !

I actually didn't understand this myself until I went through Demitri's fantastic explanation. Then I looked over the question again and said to myself, "why is this a weakening question?"

The questin stem says which one of the following can be used as a premise that uses the principle to counter the claim?

Counter the claim means go against the claim or weaken the claim, so it is a weakening question using the principle given.

When I did this question, I was trying to justify the claim with the principle, I was having the hardest time doing so, now I understand why!

[QIAOH648]

I understood in this way.

Principle said that there was a change to be explained by advantage gained by some people or group (i.e. it could refer to powerful foreign companies), therefore, some people or group who brought changes must be shown how some people or group make this significant roles (Company Changes).

Cause (those companies played a role in this change) -----> Effect (those companies gained the advantage through a change)

I chose answer (E) because it restated Claim's statement, but the second half of statement said, "there is no other evidence that these foreign companies induced the change." It negated my above cause (~those companies brought about the change). It undermine the logical relationship between the above cause and effect.

Therefore, answer (E) weakens Principle's argument.

If I understand incorrectly, please advise. Thank you.

[smiller]

Therefore, answer (E) weakens Principle's argument.

This isn't exactly what we want the correct answer to do. We are not trying to weaken the principle. The question is asking us to understand the possible relationship between the principle and the claim. When we combine the correct answer with the principle, it should contradict the claim.

The claim is proposing an exact reason for Country X's decision to lower tariff barriers. According to the claim, the reason for this change is that it served the interests of foreign companies.

According to the principle, we can't say that the lower tariff barriers served the interests of those companies without explaining how it served their interests. Notice that the claim doesn't do this. The claim just states that it did serve their interests without explaining how.

If choice (E) is true, there is no evidence that shows how the lower tariffs benefited the companies. So, if the principle is true, and choice (E) is also true, the claim isn't valid.

I hope this helps.