Q1 - Commentator: In last week's wreck

[samuelfbaron]

I got this answer correct simply by POE, but I feel like I am struggling to grasp the argument.

I also find the phrasing of the question to be very bizarre.

Could anyone provide some insights?

[sumukh09]

So we have a "determine the function" question where we're asked to find what role a certain part of the argument plays (as I'm sure you already know). In order to attack this question type we need to figure out the conclusion of the argument first and foremost and then work backwards from there ie) what's the support, background information, etc.

First sentence is definitely background information - engineer lost control when his knee accidentally hit the switch. The second part looks to be our conclusion at this point - the acme company is not liable; why? Because they didn't realize these switches were a safety hazard. The next part is more background information - the engineers said they moved the switch because of inconvenience. The "however" in the next sentence suggests we're making a shift in direction so expect a premise - conclusion type relationship. In fact, that's what we get:

They spent 500 000 to make the switch ---> they should be held liable

The implicit assumption here is that they spent a great deal on moving the switch so they knew that the original location of the switch was a safety hazard.

E) is therefore correct