Q1 - At many electronics retail stores

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Strengthen

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Usually better off not buying extended warranty.
Evidence: Most problems occur within the period covered by the warranty.

Any prephrase?
It's useful to think through possible objections. Given that most problems occur while a product is still under warranty, how could someone argue that you SHOULD buy the extented warranty? Maybe 51% of problems occur under the standard warranty, but 49% occur beyond the warranty. Perhaps that's still significant enough to merit buying the extended coverage. More importantly, what if the 49% of problems that occur AFTER the manufacturer's warranty expires are the really BIG, EXPENSIVE problems? To strengthen this argument, we might go against this objection by saying something like, "the biggest problems occur early, not later".

Correct answer:
A

Answer choice analysis:
A) Cool! This says that you would pay MORE for the extended warranty than you would pay to fix the problems that arise after the manufacturer's warranty expires.

B) This weakens, since it makes it seem like you're not spending much to get the extended warranty.

C) We don't care about WHY people buy warranties; we're debating SHOULD they buy warranties.

D) Wow, that's a boring fact about AT LEAST ONE extended warranty. And if anything, it makes that extended warranty sound like it has MORE value than we may have previously suspected (if double-coverage during the manufacturer's warranty is actually a bonus).

E) We don't care about WHY stores offer them; we're debating SHOULD customers buy them.

Takeaway/Pattern: If you have a simple prephrase of "which answer choice helps convince me that an extended warranty is NOT WORTH IT?", (A) is a runaway winner. We could have anticipated this answer by thinking about possible objections to the argument, before looking at answer choices.

#officialexplanation

[tzyc]

I see (A) strengthens the argument but how about (C)?
I think it gives an example or reason that they do not have to or should not buy the extended warranties...
Most of those who purchased it because of the reason meantioned in (C).
Or is it because this choice requires additional assumption? Such as if there is no "special" circumstances they do not have to buy it?
Thank you.

[sumukh09]

C) is wrong because it's irrelevant to the argument's conclusion in the sense that it does not provide us with a reason not to buy warranties but helps explain why people do buy warranties when they do. We're not interested in why people buy warranties - this would not strengthen the argument nor would it weaken it; it's essentially a neutral proposition that does not affect the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion of the argument, as a refresher, is that consumer's are generally better off not purchasing the warranty. C) does not give an additional reason nor strengthen a premise/conclusion while A) does the former - gives us another reason not to buy an extended warranty.

[WaltGrace1983]

"Most problems that occur with a product occur within the manufacturer's warranty
-->
Consumers are generally better off not buying extended warranties"
"Question Type: Strengthen

My Thought Process: As I worked at Best Buy throughout high school, this question was fun for me. The first thing I thought of though was, ""but the store may give you some benefits that the manufacturer won't give you!"" For example, if you buy a BBY warranty, you can bring back most of the products right to the store for a new one - if you stick with the MF warranty than you will have to send it in, see if they can fix it, get a refurbished unit, etc. It is much more of a hassle. Thus, this was at the forefront of my mind when I was going to the questions.

(A) This answer does everything right. It compares the warranties of the manufacturer and the store and it dispels a possible avenue for challenging the argument. This answer choice is saying that, even IF the product breaks after the warranty is over, it is still much less expensive to fix than buying one of those store warranties. This is a great strengthener and it is correct because of that.

(B) This might actually weaken the argument -- or perhaps do nothing at all. It would be a great answer if it just had the first sentence, i.e. that "Problems are infrequent after the manufacturer's warranty expires." This would definitely strengthen the argument by giving us more reason to believe that the warranties are not worth it. However, it is that phrase that says "extended warranties on electronic goods are generally inexpensive" that messes it up. This doesn't strengthen the argument at all and might give us more reason to believe that buying one would be a good idea. After all, they aren't that expensive and what if something does actually break? Exactly.

(C) Who cares about WHY people buy extended warranties? Certainly not the right answer does. They could buy it because they had good experiences before or they could even buy it out of pity. Either way, none of this matters to the argument and it certainly doesn't strengthen the argument. Imagine if you were making tis argument. Would you say this answer choice to someone who was challenging you? Probably not.

(D) This is a definite weakener, especially if you approach this with the mindset I went into the question with. The argument is saying that "you are better off not going with the warranty because most problems happen within the manufacturer's anyway." But this answer choice is saying "BUT, the stores will also cover you for this time AND for subsequent years." It is a great challenge to the argument. Thus, it definitely does not strengthen the argument at all.

(E) The same as C basically, just swap the customer for the store and you basically have the same explanation.