Q2 - Principle: If you sell an item

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw (what was wrong with the author's application of this rule?)

Stimulus Breakdown:

Rule: If you know something is defective and tell the person you're selling to that the item is fine, you've committed fraud.
Conclusion: Wilson committed fraud.
Evidence: W sold a bike to H. W knew little about its condition. W told H the bike was fine, but it turned out the brakes were bad.

Answer Anticipation:
The author thinks that W's sale of the bike qualifies as fraud, so we just need to see what part of the fraud rule was NOT triggered. Wilton DID sell something to someone and tell them it was fine. But -- Wilton did NOT know the item was defective. In fact, we are told that Wilton knew very little about the bike's condition. So the author is going from "knew little about the bike's condition" to "knew the bike was defective".

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) "A chance to repair the breaks" is totally out of scope. We're only concerned with the fact that the application fails to establish whether Wilton knew the bike to be defective.

(B) Money is also out of scope, as it is not part of the rule we were provided with for 'fraud'.

(C) Tempting. The meaning of defective is the same. In both cases, it means "broken, in need of repair". The principle talked about "knowing an item is defective" while the evidence talked about "the item BEING defective", but that is still using the word 'defective' in the same sense.

(D) The buyer's belief in the seller's claims is irrelevant, since the principle didn't mention that at all.

(E) Yes! This speaks to the move from "knew little about the bike's condition" (Wilton wasn't justified in saying that 'the bike is fine') to "knew the bike was defective" (If Wilton KNEW the bike were defective, then saying 'the bike is fine' would have been a false assertion)

Takeaway/Pattern: Prephrasing was fairly easy, because we knew the author had never convinced us that Wilton KNEW the bike was messed up and lied about its condition. But it ended up being useful to include in our prephrase "the move" the author was making from the most closely related concept: "knowing very little about the bike's condition". Otherwise, it's tough to hear E for giving us paraphrases for each idea.

#officialexplanation

[fimtiaz7]

Hi,
I picked the answer choice D while taking my timed test but I picked the answer E in the review afterwards. However, I notice that the language of E is what tripped me…( E) says, "Asserting something without justification is not the same as asserting something one knows to be false".

I guess it essentially means leaving the benefit of doubt. just because there was no justification with Harrison's claim of " Good working condition", it does not prove that he indeed lied / committed Fraud.. is that correct?
My understanding on it is:

Principle: sell the item while telling the buyer that it is DEFECTIVE when it is not———-> Fraud
Application: W sold his bicycle + did not know much + told the buyer that its in good working condition BUT, Defective brakes——-> Fraud

A) Irrelevant. Repair opportunity?
B) Irrelevant. Money ?
C) Equivocation. Does not happen here.
D) Buyer doesn't believe him.. I guess!! but who cares…
E) Assertion without Justification does not equal to asserting something to be false.

Any comments please?