Q6 - Problem: The Thimble Corporation recently...

[Carlystern]

Can someone explain how to arrive at the correct answer for this question?

[rinagoldfield]

Let’s break down the problem here.

ISSUE: Some customers may not have gotten a rebate because of an error by the Thimble Corporation. This is unfair.

PRINCIPLE: Anyone who creates an unfair situation should try to fix it.

We know that the Thimble Corporation created an unfair situation. But did they fix it? Let’s go to the answer choices.

(A) is the opposite of what we’re looking for. This perpetuates the unfairness rather than fixes it.

(B) undermines the notion that the Thimble Corporation created an unfair situation. But, the stimulus already states that "this [the Thimble Corporation’s error] created an unfair situation."

(C) CORRECT. Here the Thimble Corporation identifies specific people who were harmed by the unfair situation, and tries to fix the unfairness. This is the application of the principle from the stimulus.

(D) is tempting... doesn’t this fix the inequality of the rebate-handouts? But this really just spreads the unfairness to everyone. Why should coupon recipients with the correct date have to give up their rebate? This doesn’t fix this problem.

(E) doesn’t concern the unfair situation. The unfair situation is people who didn’t get the rebate because the wrong date was on their coupon.

Hope this helps!

[gaheexlee]

I actually misunderstood the argument but managed to find the correct answer mechanically by looking at the conclusions (this method can be used for other similar types of questions):

Principle: Create an unfair situation -> obligated to rectify

So we're looking for an answer choice that either says "therefore, it is obligated to rectify" or the contrapositive of the conclusion, which is "therefore, did not create an unfair situation. All others cannot be explained by the principle we are given.

A) "...therefore not obligated." This is a mistaken negation and can't be applied to our situation.

B) "...therefore not solely responsible." Even if you stretch the meaning of "responsible" to mean "obligated" to say "...therefore not solely obligated," this answer choice is still the mistaken negation.

C) "....therefore obligated." Looks good so far, let's keep it.

D) "...therefore deny the rebate." Whoa, what? Out of scope.

E) "...therefore not obligated." Like A (and maybe B), this is a mistaken negation and can't be applied to our situation.

So the answer is B. Check over the content to double check and move on.

[jan]

I'm not sure which part of the argument I am missing but I eliminated answer choice C because it is referring to a situation where the coupons had an incorrect expiration date. The problem stated that the customers "incorrectly believed" that the rebate offer had expired and I think it doesn't refer to a situation where the Corporation was found at fault for printing wrong expiration date. Just one that was too early.

What am I missing?
Thanks in advance

[tommywallach]

Hey Jan,

But it's unfair if the rebate expires earlier than people expect, because then they can't use it. So there is a mistake made that needs to be fixed.

-t

[erikwoodward10]

Thinking about these types of questions logically has helped me. The principle presents a conditional relationship. The problem triggers the SC of the conditional relationship. The stem asks us to identify the answer choice that is justified by the principle. How could that occur logically? If we show that SC-->NC (the principle). The problem and answer choice then will conform to this relationship.

We need an answer that says NC, or "thimble corporation has an obligation to rectify any unfair result of the problem". That is answer choice C.

[xjiang.xj]

I correctly selected C by matching the conclusions in the answer choices. But I am having a hard time matching the first part in C with the stimulus. Does "an expiration date that was too early" mean that it is "an incorrect expiration date"?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yup. "expiration date was too early" = "expiration date was incorrect".

In context, this is good enough, but you can also use the fact that the 3rd sentence alludes to that expiration date as giving customers an INCORRECT belief about when the real expiration date was.