Q24 - Consumer advocate: The manufacturer's instructions

[joyce.hau]

I couldn't make head nor tail of this one. All I could muster was this formal logic chart:

if instructions are available --> consumer can put the product together much easier

The question asks which would provide a principle that would most weaken the consumer advocate's argument. I'd chosen A, which seemed to show that despite the instructions, the typical consumer still couldn't put the product together easily. Why is the correct answer C, which seemed to be out of scope?

[aileenann]

I would clarify the way you phrased the question. While it will certainly weaken the consumer advocate's role to show that his advice cannot always be followed, this is not the same as just trying to weaken generally.

First, I would say (A) is not a very good answer because it doesn't tell us about the relative difficulty of using directions vs. not using directions at all, the comparison we are most interested in because the consumer advocate's argument in the first place rested on a comparison ("much easier" is the language that should draw your attention to this comparison).

On the other hand, (C) is an excellent answer because, while not explicitly, it does give a comparison that negates the consumer advocate's assumption (I would argue) that it's always possible to make things easier with instructions. In particular, how can you make it even easier than not needing instructions at all?

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you'd like more details

[kimjy89]

I chose E) and the below was what I was thinking:

People find difficult---> consult the manual
do not consult the manual---> people do not find it difficult

So this seems to suggest that for those people who consult the manual only if they have difficulty, it seems impossible that when they do consult the manual it is easier than when they don't because if they don't it means they are having no difficulty.

Could you explain why E is wrong and why C is a better answer please?

Thank you.

[aileenann]

Hi there! Thanks for your question and comments.

There's a few things I would point out that make your approach lead you awry.

The first thing is that you have glossed "much easier" into difficult v. not difficult. I think that is not quite nuanced enough for our purposes here.

Second is that I don't think there is the conditional relationship in this argument that you have posited in your rewrite of that argument.

This brings us to the third point - the "only if" in (E). (E) could only be justified if we had a real conditional in our argument, but we don't. That's the easiest way to knock it out.

Fourth, apart from these mismatches, I don't think (E) would really question the principle advanced by the consumer advocate. It could absolutely both be true that instructions should be easier than working without instructions and also be true that some consumers will only use instructions when the problem is really hard. There is no conflict between these two statements.

I hope this helps!

[itzakadoozie412]

Hi- Quick question about why A is not the answer here. How does it show that the principle stated above is being followed? A seems to imply that the instructions were not written in a way that the consumer found 'easier' b/c it says they still had 'great difficulty'.
Is it b/c the general principle of having the instructions available to them is being followed and just that the outcome of finding it easier is not part of the principle?
Does it have anything to do with the choice of words in choices A and C? I noticed A says 'great difficulty' and C says 'easily', which is mentioned in the original principle. Is there a discrepancy is the word choice here?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I don't think there's a discrepancy between the language in answer choices (A) and (C). "Very easily" sounds like the opposite of "great difficulty." Neither is relative, so I wouldn't say one answer choice is better than the other for that reason.

I think Aileen's first post hit the nail on the head on this one. There's an implicit principle that one can always make it easier to assemble the product with instructions than without them. Answer choice (C) shows quite clearly that it there are some cases that cannot be made any easier with instructions.

[tzyc]

What about (D)? Is it not strong enough to weaken the argument? (since it is not difficult to understand, there is no need to write in easier way...)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (D) seems to support the idea that one can make it easier to assemble a product with instructions. The principle in the stimulus is that instructions should be written in such a way to make it easier to assemble the product with the instructions compared to without them.

Answer choice (D) seems to suggest that one can read the instructions easily and would thereby support the principle that instructions should make assembly easier. I do see your point that if instructions are typically easy to read, there's no need to make them even easier to understand, but the comparison is between assembly with instructions as opposed to without them. Answer choice (D) would have been better had the comparison would have been between with instructions phrased in convoluted way vs. in a straightforward way.

Hope that helps!

[Djjustin818]

Why is the answer not B?

I thought that because the store offers to assemble the product, that neglects the need for the instructions to be easier to read for the consumer. I was choosing between B and C but chose B for that reason. It seems like with C, using the instructions may still be helpful, while with B it is unnecessary.

[sumukh09]

Why is the answer not B?

I thought that because the store offers to assemble the product, that neglects the need for the instructions to be easier to read for the consumer. I was choosing between B and C but chose B for that reason. It seems like with C, using the instructions may still be helpful, while with B it is unnecessary.

We need a reason why the principle in argument cannot always be followed - B is about an "offer" to assemble the product for a fee, but that does that mean the offer has to necessarily be accepted by the purchaser? Of course not, it's an offer to do something that doesn't have to be done, so this wouldn't be a reason that the consumer cannot follow the principle advocated by the consumer advocate. If B said something like, "consumers invariably pay a fee to have a product assembled regardless of whether instructions are available or not" then it would be the correct answer. For C, the availability of instructions are of no help because most consumers don't need instructions to begin with.

[pss3544]

This one really frustrated me~How does C imply for most consumers assembling without instruction cannot be easier? I get it, most of them are smart-ass, assembling the product is a piece of cake, but it doesn't mean there's no instruction that can make it even easier. For example, say I don't really need Manhattan to study lsat cuz I am just a freakin genius and I can easily get 180 after 2 weeks of study, but MAYBE, using Manhattan I just need 1 day to get 180.

[T.J.]

Thank you guys for the previous explanation.
I just have a follow-up question about (D).
I understand that (D) does not contradict the stimulus, let alone weaken it. However, in a testing situation, the stress level and time constraint might deteriorate my ability to make the right analysis. I was wondering if the words "some consumers" might serve as a breakthrough point, as what's mentioned in the argument is "most consumers". Even though some consumers behave one way, most consumers could still do the opposite. Then upon seeing "some consumers", I would be able to tell this choice isn't right.
Let me know what you guys think. Feedback will be greatly appreciated.

[sumukh09]

Thank you guys for the previous explanation.
I just have a follow-up question about (D).
I understand that (D) does not contradict the stimulus, let alone weaken it. However, in a testing situation, the stress level and time constraint might deteriorate my ability to make the right analysis. I was wondering if the words "some consumers" might serve as a breakthrough point, as what's mentioned in the argument is "most consumers". Even though some consumers behave one way, most consumers could still do the opposite. Then upon seeing "some consumers", I would be able to tell this choice isn't right.
Let me know what you guys think. Feedback will be greatly appreciated.

Answer choice D says "usually" which we can equate with "most" so it is insignificant to why answer choice D is wrong. What makes answer choice D wrong is that it doesn't give us a reason why the principle advanced in the stimulus cannot always be followed. The principle is basically that assembly instructions should be written such that they make it easier to put the product together than not having any instructions at all. D says that consumers usually have no difficulty understanding instructions. How does their ease in understanding instructions provide us with a reason that the principle cannot always be followed? The stimulus makes a comparison between the existence of well written instructions vs. no instructions at all and uses that distinction to argue that the clarity of instructions should factor in it mattering whether instructions are available than not. D doesn't touch upon this distinction.

Answer choice C on the other hand does. If most consumers don't even read the instructions, then it makes no difference in how the instructions are written and if it makes no difference, then it doesn't matter if the instructions are actually there or not. Hope this helps

[Aquamarine]

I kept reading the explanation above, but I still don't understand why A can't be an answer and C is right.

The stimulus said "Instruction is available-> consumers would find it much easier to put together" and I should find out the situation which cannot always meet the principle.
I thought if it went like this Instruction is available-> consumers would "NOT" find it much easier to put together, so that's why I picked A.

But the answer is C. It's like Instruction is NOT available-> consumers would find it much easier to put together, right?
So how can C be an answer?
I mean when we find something against principles, shouldn't we find A-> NOT B (if the stimulus says A->B)?
So that's why I thought A is an answer because it's just like A->Not B (But C is "NOT A->B")

Can anyone explain why C is an answer and A is wrong?
Thanks!

[redskateboard]

C says most consumers don't consult the instructions.

I could make the instructions the best written instructions in the world, and it would not make it any easier for MOST consumers. I could also forget to include the instructions and wouldn't make any more difficult for MOST consumers. They simply don't use it. This makes the advocates advice impossible to follow.

As for why A is wrong...

Advice: make the instructions so that they make it much easier for most people to assemble the product
Choice A: typical people use the instructions and struggle
A says nothing about this important scenario: most people use the instructions and experience difficulty rating of 7/10. Typical person who doesn't have instructions experiences difficulty of 10/10. The advice is FOLLOWED in this case. It's much easier for most consumers to put it together.

[YurikaC738]

For A, the accumulation of the typical consumer is not necessarily equal to most consumers. The goal is to weaken the conclusion that if instructions written in a clearer way, most consumers would find it much easier to put the product together. For A, it does not tell us anything about the profile of most consumers. However, for C, it tells us that most consumers are smart enough to not rely on the instructions, which means even if instructions written in a clearer way, most consumers would not find it much easier (because they are easy enough)