62 LR Two Question 20
- « 62 LR Two Question 19
- 2052 of 3815
- 62 LR Two Question 21 »
Comments

Hi Dave,
I understand why E is a the right answer but can you please explain why D is incorrect. Im most likely reading into it wrong but to me it sounds like D is saying that the manufacturer should be held accountable regardless if they were able to prevent it or not. So wouldn't D accomplish the same goal as E in saying that at the end of the day the manufacturer should be held responsible?

I see why you liked (D), and I think you're right about the way you've read it. It sounds as though you're treating (D) as if it said "Manufacturers should be held responsible whether or not the consequences were preventable." If it said that, it would work as an answer!
However, (D) doesn't say that. It doesn't tell us when a manufacturer should be held responsible; only that the consequences of their actions are not the deciding factor.
That leaves a question for us: well, then, what is the deciding factor? How are we to know when the manufacturer is responsible? (D) doesn't tell us that, and thereby isn't our answer.

I see it now, can't believe I missed that. Thanks Dave!

Dave,
I might have same problem here on question 18 in this section. Actually I got correct but while reviewing, I'm confused of the reasoning relation. premise ignore -> ~ responsibility
conclusion; Investigate -> prevent
Responsibility -? Not ignore (= investigate) -> prevent
I don't know why this form made. please tell me where is the problem in my sloving procedure

Well, I'm not sure I understand what you've written here. But the argument claims that the manufacturer is to blame, and it makes that claim on the basis of the fact that it it had investigated, it would have been able to prevent the illnesses. So the question is: What does that fact have to do with whether they're to blame? The answer of course is nothing. But if you add (E), then we see that they are to blame; they could have prevented the consequences. Take your evidence in one hand and your conclusion in the other. The right answer puts the two together.

Ah! I thought the last sentence is conclusion so it was wrong to connect the two premises like R -> P. I read it again then I found my error.
Thank you!