Q4 - Company Spokesperson: Household Products magazine

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: (implicit) Our filter DOES remove significant chemical contaminants from water.
Evidence: Millions of customers are satisfied with its performance.

Answer Anticipation:
That's not the strongest evidence for chemical filtration: people are satisfied? I don't know how we, as consumers, would be able to tell whether the filter succesfully removes microscopic contaminants. It's possible that people are satisfied with the product, even though it does nothing. Perhaps they just feel better using it, and they notice no ill-effect of using it, so they say they are satisfied.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Out of scope: We care about filtration of chemicals, not taste.

(B) Yes! This makes our similar objection -- this is shady evidence! How would a consumer know whether or not the filter is doing anything?

(C) Out of scope: We don't care who's most likely to buy the filter. We care about whether the filter works.

(D) Out of scope: We don't care whether filter users read this magazine. We care about whether the filter works.

(E) In the real world, we might read this and think, "Wow this magazine is out to GET this filter. We shouldn't trust the magazine's evaluation." That sort of interpretation would only Strengthen the author, but we're not allowed to even think that way. So what if they've been consistently negative? Maybe filter X has been consistently awful and deserved negative reviews.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is a Weaken question that almost plays out more like Flaw, in that our primary reaction to the argument should be that it's relying on very sketchy, unscientific evidence to make a very specific, scientific claim about chemical filtration.

#officialexplanation