- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:00 am
#72934
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen-Principle. The correct answer choice is (E).
There is no argument in this stimulus, only a fact pattern that describes what a salesperson did: recommended to a landlord a less powerful air conditioning unit that was the same price as a more powerful one, on the grounds that the recommended unit was powerful enough. At first glance this might seem like bad advice. Why not get the more powerful unit if it is the same price? Why settle for good enough when something better is available at no extra charge?
The stem asks us to identify a principle (a rule, a guideline) that would help us to understand why the salesperson did what they did. When we are asked about a stimulus "conforming" to a principle, we mean that the fact pattern or argument followed the rule in the correct answer, and that the rule in that answer supports, explains, or otherwise helps make sense of the stimulus.
So what rule would help make our salesperson look good for doing what they did? A rule that says a salesperson should always recommend the least powerful unit that is good enough for the job, or that says a customer should never buy something more powerful than they need.
Answer choice (A): This answer tells us nothing about what either the salesperson of the customer should do in these circumstances, only what could be satisfactory. We need a rule about what these people should have done, so this is a loser.
Answer choice (B): An opposite answer here, which suggests that the customer should have in this case bought the MORE powerful unit! This would undermine, rather than support, the actions of the salesperson.
Answer choice (C): While this answer at least gets to what the salesperson should do, and might be somewhat attractive as a result, it muddies the waters a bit by bringing up the idea of "best value." What's a better value - a more powerful unit, or a less powerful one for the same price? The stimulus doesn't give us enough information to know what the better value is. Perhaps the less powerful unit is a better value due to using less energy, or needing less maintenance, or lasting longer? Or maybe the more powerful unit is the better value for any of those same reasons? We simply cannot tell whether this rule helps, hurts, or has no impact on the stimulus, and so it is a loser.
Answer choice (D): Because this answer focuses on the salesperson's commission, about which we know absolutely nothing from the stimulus, it doesn't give us enough information to know whether this rule helps, hurts, or has no impact on the stimulus.
Answer choice (E):This is the correct answer choice. At last, an answer that matches our prephrase! If the customer should buy the least powerful unit that meets her needs, then the salesperson't recommendation at last makes clear sense. This rule, when applied to the stimulus, helps to explain the actions of the salesperson, and is therefore correct.
Strengthen-Principle. The correct answer choice is (E).
There is no argument in this stimulus, only a fact pattern that describes what a salesperson did: recommended to a landlord a less powerful air conditioning unit that was the same price as a more powerful one, on the grounds that the recommended unit was powerful enough. At first glance this might seem like bad advice. Why not get the more powerful unit if it is the same price? Why settle for good enough when something better is available at no extra charge?
The stem asks us to identify a principle (a rule, a guideline) that would help us to understand why the salesperson did what they did. When we are asked about a stimulus "conforming" to a principle, we mean that the fact pattern or argument followed the rule in the correct answer, and that the rule in that answer supports, explains, or otherwise helps make sense of the stimulus.
So what rule would help make our salesperson look good for doing what they did? A rule that says a salesperson should always recommend the least powerful unit that is good enough for the job, or that says a customer should never buy something more powerful than they need.
Answer choice (A): This answer tells us nothing about what either the salesperson of the customer should do in these circumstances, only what could be satisfactory. We need a rule about what these people should have done, so this is a loser.
Answer choice (B): An opposite answer here, which suggests that the customer should have in this case bought the MORE powerful unit! This would undermine, rather than support, the actions of the salesperson.
Answer choice (C): While this answer at least gets to what the salesperson should do, and might be somewhat attractive as a result, it muddies the waters a bit by bringing up the idea of "best value." What's a better value - a more powerful unit, or a less powerful one for the same price? The stimulus doesn't give us enough information to know what the better value is. Perhaps the less powerful unit is a better value due to using less energy, or needing less maintenance, or lasting longer? Or maybe the more powerful unit is the better value for any of those same reasons? We simply cannot tell whether this rule helps, hurts, or has no impact on the stimulus, and so it is a loser.
Answer choice (D): Because this answer focuses on the salesperson's commission, about which we know absolutely nothing from the stimulus, it doesn't give us enough information to know whether this rule helps, hurts, or has no impact on the stimulus.
Answer choice (E):This is the correct answer choice. At last, an answer that matches our prephrase! If the customer should buy the least powerful unit that meets her needs, then the salesperson't recommendation at last makes clear sense. This rule, when applied to the stimulus, helps to explain the actions of the salesperson, and is therefore correct.