CR: That gadget I bought for the kitchen..

[syamalanka]

This is from 1000 CRs:

That gadget I bought for the kitchen last week has already broken. It’s just another example of the shoddy products that we are seeing more and more of these days. The thing was probably manufactured in East Golo.
Which one of the following is the best expression of an unstated premise that underlies the author’s reasoning in the passage?
(A) If a manufacturer uses shoddy materials to make a gadget, the gadget is likely to break quickly.
(B) If a gadget breaks quickly, it was probably manufactured in East Golo.
(C) If a kitchen gadget was manufactured in East Golo, it should not be sold in this country.
(D) If everything that is manufactured in East Golo breaks quickly, then kitchen gadgets manufactured in East Golo are likely to break quickly.
(E) Nothing that is manufactured in East Golo can be expected to last more than a week.

The answer is B, which I understand, but why can it not be E. After all, if we negate E, then the conclusion does fall apart.

[helloriteshranjan]

This is from 1000 CRs:

That gadget I bought for the kitchen last week has already broken. It’s just another example of the shoddy products that we are seeing more and more of these days. The thing was probably manufactured in East Golo.
Which one of the following is the best expression of an unstated premise that underlies the author’s reasoning in the passage?
(A) If a manufacturer uses shoddy materials to make a gadget, the gadget is likely to break quickly.
(B) If a gadget breaks quickly, it was probably manufactured in East Golo.
(C) If a kitchen gadget was manufactured in East Golo, it should not be sold in this country.
(D) If everything that is manufactured in East Golo breaks quickly, then kitchen gadgets manufactured in East Golo are likely to break quickly.
(E) Nothing that is manufactured in East Golo can be expected to last more than a week.

The answer is B, which I understand, but why can it not be E. After all, if we negate E, then the conclusion does fall apart.

E passes a sweeping statement that anything manufactured in East Golo will not last more than a week. this is not stated in the CR passage.
B says ...probably manufactured in East Golo... its in line with what is stated in the CR stem.
hope it clarifies.

[RonPurewal]

This is from 1000 CRs:

That gadget I bought for the kitchen last week has already broken. It’s just another example of the shoddy products that we are seeing more and more of these days. The thing was probably manufactured in East Golo.
Which one of the following is the best expression of an unstated premise that underlies the author’s reasoning in the passage?
(A) If a manufacturer uses shoddy materials to make a gadget, the gadget is likely to break quickly.
(B) If a gadget breaks quickly, it was probably manufactured in East Golo.
(C) If a kitchen gadget was manufactured in East Golo, it should not be sold in this country.
(D) If everything that is manufactured in East Golo breaks quickly, then kitchen gadgets manufactured in East Golo are likely to break quickly.
(E) Nothing that is manufactured in East Golo can be expected to last more than a week.

The answer is B, which I understand, but why can it not be E. After all, if we negate E, then the conclusion does fall apart.

nope. choice (e) is a statement about all things made in E.Golo, whereas choice (b) is a statement about things that break quickly.
the criterion used for inference, in this passage, is the fact that the item breaks quickly. so (e) is irrelevant, and (b) is correct.

--

analogy:
my friend says "that guy's name is Teixeira, so he must be from Brazil."
choice (b) would be all people named Teixeira are from Brazil --> this is the operative assumption.
choice (e) would be everybody from Brazil is named Teixeira (or, equivalently, nobody from brazil is NOT named Teixeira). this is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with the passage.