Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardEvaluate the Argument

Industry Analyst: Over the past fiscal year, the average cost to manufacture an electric vehicle (EV) battery fell by 20 percent. During the same period, the retail prices of EVs remained stagnant, yet the average profit margin per vehicle for EV manufacturers declined. Given that the battery constitutes the single largest share of an EV's total component costs, the financial savings from the cheaper batteries must have been completely negated by a substantial surge in the procurement costs of the EVs' non-battery components.

Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?

  1. Whether EV manufacturers experienced a substantial increase in per-vehicle expenses that are unrelated to the physical components of the vehicles, such as assembly labor or marketing.Answer
  2. B
    Whether the retail prices of electric vehicles are dictated more by consumer demand than by the underlying costs of manufacturing.
  3. C
    Whether the 20 percent decrease in battery costs represents a greater absolute monetary saving than any manufacturing cost reduction achieved in the preceding decade.
  4. D
    Whether the decline in average profit margins for electric vehicle manufacturers coincided with an industry-wide decrease in the durability of non-battery components.
  5. E
    Whether electric vehicle manufacturers implemented new safety features last year that qualify as expensive non-battery physical components.

Answer

The option that asks whether EV manufacturers experienced a substantial increase in per-vehicle expenses unrelated to physical components, such as assembly labor or marketing.
The core logical flaw in the analyst's argument is a scope shift between 'total component costs' and overall per-vehicle expenses. The argument assumes that because a component cost (the battery) decreased, the offsetting increase must also come from another physical component. The correct answer applies the Variance Test perfectly: If EV manufacturers did experience a substantial increase in non-component expenses (like labor or marketing), this alternative explanation weakens the conclusion that non-battery components were responsible. Conversely, if they did not experience an increase in non-component expenses, this rules out the primary alternative, thereby strengthening the conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's premises and main conclusion.
Premises: Battery costs fell 20%; EV prices remained stagnant; per-vehicle profit margins declined; batteries are the largest component cost. Conclusion: The savings from cheaper batteries must have been negated by a surge in the costs of non-battery components.
Deconstructing the argument into structural parts is the essential first step to finding logical gaps.
2
Identify the core assumption and logical flaw.
The analyst assumes that physical components are the only expenses that factor into the profit margin. They ignore non-component expenses like labor, marketing, and administration.
An Evaluate question typically targets the central assumption bridging the premises to the conclusion.
3
Apply the Variance Test to the choices.
Testing the correct option: 'Yes' (non-component expenses surged) provides an alternative cause for the declining margin, weakening the conclusion. 'No' (non-component expenses did not surge) eliminates this alternative, strengthening the conclusion.
The Variance Test is the definitive method for confirming the correct answer in Evaluate questions.

Key Concept

Applying the Variance Test to identify scope shifts between specific categories (component costs) and broader categories (overall per-vehicle expenses).
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluate the Argument

More questions from this topic