Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaPrinciple - Justify

Consumer Advocate: The manufacturer of the Apex blender knew that its motor could overheat and catch fire if used continuously for more than ten minutes. Instead of redesigning the motor, the manufacturer simply included a warning in the user manual advising against continuous use beyond ten minutes. Because it is highly predictable that many consumers will not read the manual before using a kitchen appliance, the manufacturer is fully responsible for the property damage caused by the blender fires.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the consumer advocate's reasoning?

  1. If a manufacturer is aware of a product hazard and chooses to rely solely on a warning that is highly predictable to go unread rather than redesigning the product, the manufacturer bears full responsibility for any resulting damage.Cevap
  2. B
    A manufacturer is fully responsible for property damage caused by a product only if the manufacturer was aware of the hazard and chose to issue a warning rather than redesigning the product.
  3. C
    If a manufacturer is fully responsible for property damage caused by a product, it must be because the manufacturer relied on a warning that was highly predictable to be ignored by consumers.
  4. D
    If a manufacturer does not know about a potential hazard and does not include a warning, then the manufacturer is not fully responsible for any resulting property damage.
  5. E
    A manufacturer is fully responsible for property damage caused by a kitchen appliance if the hazard occurs during what is considered normal household use.

Cevap

The principle that guarantees full responsibility when a manufacturer is aware of a hazard, relies on a predictable-to-be-ignored warning, and fails to redesign the product.
The consumer advocate concludes that the manufacturer is fully responsible for the property damage. The premises establishing this are that the manufacturer knew of the fire hazard, chose not to redesign the motor, and instead relied on a manual warning that consumers were highly predictably not going to read. To justify the conclusion, the argument requires a conditional rule that guarantees full responsibility when these exact conditions are met. The correct option provides this exact sufficient condition, seamlessly bridging the gap between the factual premises and the normative conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the manufacturer is fully responsible for the property damage caused by the blender fires.
This is the normative judgment that the consumer advocate is trying to prove.
2
Identify the factual premises provided to support the conclusion.
The manufacturer knew of the hazard, chose to warn instead of redesign, and it is highly predictable that consumers will not read the warning.
These facts form the 'if' side of the necessary bridging principle.
3
Formulate a sufficient principle to bridge the gap.
If [Premises], then [Conclusion]. (If known hazard + unread warning + no redesign -> full responsibility).
A 'Justify' question requires a principle that mathematically guarantees the conclusion when the premises are activated.
4
Evaluate the options against the formulated principle.
The correct option perfectly matches the required 'If [Premises], then [Conclusion]' structure without reversing terms or introducing outside requirements.
Distractors will typically scramble the sufficient/necessary relationship or introduce irrelevant criteria.

Anahtar Kavram

Principle - Justify (Sufficient Assumption)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Principle - Justify

Bu konudan daha fazla soru