- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8223
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
Justify the Conclusion—PR. The correct answer choice is (C)
This relatively unusual stimulus contains two parts: the first part outlines a principle; the second
describes its application. Both parts employ somewhat convoluted language, which makes the
stimulus rather difficult to follow. Simplification is therefore key:
- Principle: Telemarketers should never act in a way that makes people dislike their clients
(i.e. the companies whose products telemarketers are hired to sell).
Application: Telemarketers should never harass unwilling customers into buying products
they do not want.
choice will add a piece of information to the principle showing that its application is logically valid.
Structurally, the “principle” part of the stimulus functions as a premise, while its “application” – as
the conclusion. The sufficient condition indicator (“if”) in the question stem is a reminder that you
must select an answer that is sufficient to prove the application of the principle by using the Justify
- Principle + Answer choice = Application
against behaving in a certain way. We need to ensure that the type of behavior prohibited in
the “application” part of the stimulus leads to the type of undesirable outcome stipulated in the
“principle.” In other words, our job is to prove that harassing people into buying unwanted products
makes these people dislike the telemarketer’s clients. This prephrase is key, and immediately reveals
that answer choice (C) is correct.
Answer choice (A): The application of the principle takes for granted that telemarketers can reliably
determine what types of actions are likely to engender animosity toward the client. While this answer
choice may be an assumption upon which the application depends, it is certainly not sufficient to
justify it. Indeed, even if telemarketers could tell when harassing unwilling customers engendered
animosity toward the client, that would not prove that customer harassment has a similar effect, nor
does it justify the outright prohibition against harassment. The application of the principle amounts
to a definitive prohibition; it does not invite a case-by-case approach.
Answer choice (B): If some telemarketers were unable to tell when their actions engender animosity
towards the client, such telemarketers would have a difficult time complying with the principle
outlined in the stimulus. This answer choice does not justify the application of the principle and is
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The principle cautions telemarketers never
to predispose people to dislike the agencies’ clients. So, if harassing customers into buying unwanted
products is sure to do that (“any employee…will engender”), then it makes sense to prohibit such
behavior on the part of telemarketers. When combined with the principle outlined in the stimulus,
this answer choice logically proves its application.
Note that the definitive language of this answer choice is reasonable given the absolute nature of
the prohibition in both the principle and its application. Furthermore, the correct answer choice in a
typical Justify question often does contain extreme language, as the very nature of the question stem
requires a statement strong enough to prove the conclusion (or, in this case, the application).
Answer choice (D): This is the Opposite answer. If being harassed by telemarketers does not always
engender animosity toward the telemarketers’ clients, then there would be little reason to prohibit
such behavior. This answer choice undermines the application of the principle and is therefore
Answer choice (E): This answer choice might “make sense” in the real world, but this is not good
enough reason to select it. Indeed, people often refuse to buy certain products if they are already
predisposed to dislike the companies that make them. While continuing to harass such customers is
likely to be ineffective, this – by itself – does not justify the application of the principle. In a way,
it obviates the need to comply with it. After all, if those who refuse to buy the advertised products
tend to dislike the agencies’ clients, telemarketers would have little reason to worry that their actions
would engender animosity toward the client (chances, are such animosity already exists among the
customers who refuse to buy the product).